BUSINESS BEFORE QUESTIONS

Queen’s Speech (Answer to Address)

The Vice-Chamberlain of the Household reported to the House, That Her Majesty, having been attended with its Address of 8th May was pleased to receive the same very graciously and give the following Answer:
	I have received with great satisfaction the dutiful and loyal expression of your thanks for the speech with which I opened the present Session of Parliament.

Electoral Commission

The Vice-Chamberlain of the Household reported to the House, That the Address of 8th July, praying that Her Majesty will appoint Anthony Hugh Burton Hobman to be an Electoral Commissioner with effect from 1 January 2014 for the period ending 31st December 2017, was presented to Her Majesty, who was graciously pleased to comply with the request.

ORAL ANSWERS TO QUESTIONS

INTERNATIONAL DEVELOPMENT

The Secretary of State was asked—

Bangladesh

Simon Hughes: What priorities her Department has in Bangladesh for the next 12 months.

Justine Greening: The Department for International Development has three key priorities in Bangladesh between 2011 and 2015: improving the provision of basic services, supporting private sector development and helping to reduce risks to development, including from natural disasters. Over the coming year, DFID will also focus on improving working conditions in the garment sector and supporting free, fair and credible elections.

Simon Hughes: I am grateful to the Secretary of State for that answer. Will she add to it by saying what our Government might be able to do to help people in Bangladesh achieve decent basic minimum wages for work and safer working conditions, and to enable poor people to receive the finance they need, either for their families or to start businesses so that they can succeed?

Justine Greening: We have a range of programmes to help improve livelihoods. Most recently, when my right hon. Friend the Minister of State visited Bangladesh,
	he announced an £18 million UK-funded programme to help people, particularly factory workers, to develop skills. We are taking a range of measures. I should add that we also work with international organisations like the International Labour Organisation to improve workers’ standards and drive workers’ conditions upwards.

Keith Vaz: As the Secretary of State may know, the Prime Minister of Bangladesh was in London last week. I discussed with her the high level of diabetes in Bangladesh, which has one of the highest levels of any country in the world. What health projects do we have in Bangladesh specifically to help to reduce diabetes?

Justine Greening: I am grateful for the right hon. Gentleman’s question. DFID has health programmes and general programmes to lift people out of poverty, but also to ensure that they have access to services like health care that can help them get on with their day-to-day lives. I will write to him with a fuller update on whether we engage in any direct diabetes-related programmes, which I hope will be helpful to him.

Philip Hollobone: What is the total size of our aid assistance to Bangladesh and how much of it goes on ameliorating the appalling environmental conditions, given that Bangladesh is situated on the Delta?

Justine Greening: The overall programme is about £200 million a year, which is split across a range of activities. Part of it is for basic services like health and education, as I have said; part of it is for economic development; and part of it is to address humanitarian conditions and disaster prevention, readiness and resilience. The final part of the programme is for governance programmes, as I said in my initial answer—these support the Electoral Commission and free and fair elections in Bangladesh—and supporting people so they can access the services and the welfare protection that they deserve.

Syria

Karen Lumley: What steps she is taking to improve the co-ordination of humanitarian support for Syria and the surrounding region.

Justine Greening: Humanitarian actors are working tirelessly throughout the region, dealing with 1.7 million refugees now outside Syria and 4 million internally displaced people still inside Syria. Improving co-ordination and access is absolutely critical, which is why on 3 July I hosted a meeting with donors and key UN agencies in London to map out some steps on how we continue to up our game. Last week I also visited Lebanon.

Karen Lumley: Does the Secretary of State agree that an enormous burden is being placed on the countries that neighbour Syria, and that the international community must help them so that they can be fully supported?

Justine Greening: Yes, I do. It is projected that Lebanon, a country with a population of 4 million, will have 1 million refugees by the end of the year. If the same proportion of refugees were to arrive in the UK, the
	figure would be upwards of 15 million. We need to do everything we can to support not only the refugees but the host communities that they are going into.

Alison McGovern: The UNICEF ambassador Eddie Izzard recently returned from Syria. He said that
	“missing from these discussions are the Syrian children, who are not made of steel, and who are facing desperate and harrowing conditions.”
	He specifically drew attention to the lack of education for children there. What conversations has DFID had about providing schooling for children in Syria?

Justine Greening: This is something that DFID has particularly focused on. We have given funding directly to UNICEF to support educational facilities—when I was in the Zaatari camp in Jordan, I saw school facilities that had recently been built—and to support counselling. I would like to look more carefully with the United Nations agencies at what we can do to provide trauma counselling for children and their parents, because many of them have gone through awful experiences before ending up in the refugee camps.

Malcolm Bruce: When King Abdullah of Jordan was in London recently, he told us that there was a massive problem with crime, violent assault, rape, prostitution and trafficking involving women who had been displaced by the violence in Syria. What action are we taking to ensure that those women and girls can be protected, because currently they are not?

Justine Greening: We do our best work with the UN agencies, which are co-ordinating much of the relief to ensure that the most vulnerable are protected. The right hon. Gentleman will be aware that about 75% of the refugees leaving Syria are women and children, so this is incredibly important. Alongside that work, we clearly need to work in the host communities in places like Jordan to ensure that they are able to cope with this huge influx of people who are placing added pressure on their services, which can often cause tension leading to the kind of trouble that he has mentioned.

David Crausby: The United Nations reports that the refugee crisis in Syria is the worst since that in Rwanda, and that 6,000 people—over half of them children—are fleeing the country every day. What does the Secretary of State intend to do to protect the health and education of those children in what is becoming a catastrophic humanitarian disaster?

Justine Greening: The hon. Gentleman is right to point out the comments of António Guterres, who is heading up the refugee operation. As I said earlier, we are particularly focused on what we can do to support the most vulnerable, and that includes children. We are doubling our support to over £300 million in the coming months, and I can assure him that we will put the appropriate amount of that into helping children cope with what is happening to them and ensuring that they are still preparing for the rest of their lives through education.

John Baron: Britain is leading the way in providing humanitarian relief, but some of our international partners are perhaps doing less well. Given that many refugee camps are still suffering desperate shortages of
	basic amenities, will the Secretary of State apply more pressure on her international partners and encourage them to step up to the plate?

Justine Greening: My hon. Friend is absolutely right. We played a leading role in galvanising donors at the Kuwait conference earlier this year, and I regularly raise this issue with donors and with the UN. I will continue to do that at the UN General Assembly in September. It is critical that, when countries come to a donor conference and make pledges, they should honour them. It is also critical that the region itself should take steps to ensure that it, too, is playing its full role.

Ann McKechin: The UN emergency relief co-ordinator, Valerie Amos, has highlighted the need for cross-border access for international agencies so they can provide appropriate medical and other help to refugees. What progress has been made in the UN Security Council towards obtaining such access without requiring the consent of the Syrian Government?

Justine Greening: The short answer is not nearly enough. Access to Syria is still overly restricted, particularly by the regime, and we are seeing attacks and violence against humanitarian workers and convoys. That is totally unacceptable, and we will continue to raise our concern about it at the highest levels of the UN.

Global Health Fund

Sheila Gilmore: What support her Department provides for the Global Fund to Fight AIDS, Tuberculosis and Malaria; and if she will make a statement.

Lynne Featherstone: The UK provides support to the fund, both financially and through membership of its governing board. We are the fund’s third-largest donor. Through DFID country offices, we provide a range of complementary funding and support to national health plans and global fund-supported programmes.

Sheila Gilmore: I thank the Minister for that answer. What steps is the UK now taking to galvanise support for the global fund from other donors?

Lynne Featherstone: We are using our influence with all other donors to ensure that they step up to the mark in the autumn replenishment, as we intend to do.

Michael Fabricant: What discussions has my hon. Friend had with the Department of Health to ensure that the right sort of drugs, particularly antibiotics, are prescribed in these development areas?

Lynne Featherstone: I personally have not had such discussions, but we nevertheless work closely with the Department of Health and drug companies to ensure that the right drugs get to the right people for the right diseases in the right places.

Ivan Lewis: Ministers have consistently suggested that the UK would be willing to consider doubling its contribution to the global health fund. In view of the fact that the fund has made major
	changes and is under new leadership, will the Minister advise the Secretary of State to stop dithering and confirm the UK’s increased contribution before the summer recess? That would incentivise other countries to step up to the plate and ensure that not one more day is wasted in the fight to defeat AIDS, TB and malaria. Will the Government please get on with this?

Lynne Featherstone: What we are doing is the absolute opposite of dithering. We have stepped up to the mark: we are providing £1 billion as promised and ahead of schedule. The hon. Gentleman is right inasmuch as the global health fund has made serious moves towards reform and has overhauled its strategy and governance. We want to look at it strategically, and we need to look at the “mini-MAR”—multilateral aid review—the International Development Committee response, the National Audit Office report and the HIV provision paper. I am sure that the hon. Gentleman would not want us to spend money inappropriately. We will lead, we are leading and we intend to carry on leading.

Martin Horwood: Stop TB UK described the Government’s response on malaria as a model aid agency response, but it is worried that TB is a poor relation of the three diseases. It hits the poorest hardest, but interventions to stop TB are very cost-effective. Will the Minister meet Stop TB UK to discuss its concerns?

Lynne Featherstone: My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State has met Stop TB UK, and I have just returned from South Africa, where I convened a round table on TB, particularly on the theme of TB and HIV in the mines. This is such an important issue that we want to move forward on it. Spending money to stop TB in other countries helps us to stop TB in this country.

Mr Speaker: We are extremely obliged to the Minister.

Agricultural Science

George Freeman: What plans she has to support the application of agricultural science, research and innovation in developing economies.

Justine Greening: DFID is scaling up its agricultural research work in developing countries, particularly programmes that address the slow pace of agricultural innovation in sub-Saharan Africa.

George Freeman: I thank the Secretary of State for that answer, and congratulate her on the recent announcement of the £7 million international trade centre and the £57 million trade support package for Kenya and Uganda. Does she agree with me that trade is the best form of aid and that integrating our aid and trade missions, particularly in the field of agricultural technology, is the best way to drive really sustainable development?

Justine Greening: My hon. Friend is right, which is why I am very pleased that DFID is a central part of the agri-tech strategy that is shortly to be set out by the Government. It is absolute clear that we have an important
	role in helping poor countries to improve their agricultural systems and, in doing so, to help develop trade both domestically and internationally.

Chi Onwurah: Will the Secretary of State also commit to working with the scientific community in this country and abroad to explore the myths on both sides of the argument about the use of genetically modified food and agriculture in developing countries so that the UK can take an evidence-based position?

Justine Greening: The hon. Lady will know that ultimately it is up to each individual country to work out how it wants to deal with the issue of GM foods. She will have been pleased to see that at the recent G8 event on nutrition, science and accessing scientific experts was a key part of our nutrition push over the coming months and years.

Natural Disasters (Resilience)

Oliver Colvile: What steps her Department takes to reduce the impact of natural disasters by increasing the resilience of communities.

Alan Duncan: Resilience means equipping communities better to withstand disasters and giving them the means to recover afterwards. DFID’s programmes include investments before disasters, such as in flood defences and setting up systems to give people early warning. We also help people bounce back after the event, for example by setting up insurance schemes and by providing income support.

Oliver Colvile: My right hon. Friend will know of the devastating impact that natural disasters have on developing countries and the role that Devonport-based ships play in sorting out disaster relief. What is his Department doing to build the capacity of state institutions in the developing world to deal with the impact of these natural disasters?

Alan Duncan: My hon. Friend is right. Navy ships such as those from his constituency have been crucially important in the past—for example, three years ago in Haiti. He is also right about the importance of a country’s capacity. We help in that regard through, for instance, pre-earthquake planning in Nepal and flood preparedness in Bangladesh.

Tom Clarke: As the Minister knows, DFID has a deservedly high reputation for helping in disasters, but is there not a case for making some programmes longer than they have been in the past? We want to move not just from disaster to aid, but from disaster to development.

Alan Duncan: That is absolutely true. We need long-term preparation in advance, and a longer-term response following any disaster. Those were the conclusions of a review conducted at the beginning of the current Parliament, whose recommendations we are implementing as best we can.

Tony Cunningham: Those who are hit hardest by disasters are almost always the most vulnerable members of society. What steps has the Department taken to ensure that inequality is considered in resilience planning?

Alan Duncan: People who live in poverty are indeed the ones who suffer most as a result of natural disasters, which pull them into a cycle of debt, illness and thence even deeper poverty. Investing in measures to help communities to cope with disasters protects lives and livelihoods, and safeguards investment in a country’s development.

North and West Africa (Population)

Richard Ottaway: What assessment she has made of likely population growth in north and west Africa by 2050; and if she will make a statement.

Lynne Featherstone: The United Nations released revised population projections on 13 June. The population in north Africa is projected to increase from 200 million in 2010 to 319 million in 2050, while in west Africa the projected rise is from 305 million in 2010 to 815 million in 2050.

Richard Ottaway: The region is already experiencing substantial instability and extremism, and the likely outcome is that millions of young men and women will have bleak economic prospects. Given that no country has emerged from poverty without first addressing its levels of population growth, will the Minister give the region priority in her population programmes?

Lynne Featherstone: My hon. Friend has made an important point. West Africa has particularly high rates of population growth, and there is much less take-up of family planning there. DFID’s work involves not only family planning—which is a complex issue—but the delaying of first pregnancies, access to economic assets for girls, getting girls through secondary school and preventing violence, all of which contribute to making the population richer and more successful.

Nick Smith: The international remittance trade is worth $500 billion a year. How will DFID support United Kingdom links with countries in north and west Africa where many people depend on remittances?

Lynne Featherstone: Remittances are indeed very important. My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State has met the head of Barclays to discuss the issue, with the aim of ensuring that remittances can be sent back to a country when they have the potential to increase that country’s GDP.

Aid Dependency

Andrew Jones: What steps her Department is taking to end aid dependency through jobs and economic development.

Justine Greening: I am ramping up my Department’s economic development efforts to ensure that we adopt a more systematic and structured approach in order to unlock more trade and investment. That includes embarking on a new relationship with the CBI, meeting representatives of the extractive industries and engineering companies, and starting to work with United Kingdom retailers to drive up standards.

Andrew Jones: Does my right hon. Friend agree that poverty can only be reduced in the long run through economic development, and that DFID can play a major role in helping companies to grow and get people into work so that they can raise their own tax revenues to fund their own services?

Justine Greening: My hon. Friend is absolutely right. United Kingdom companies also have a key role to play, and companies in his own constituency, such as Taylors of Harrogate, demonstrate how that can be done.

Topical Questions

Simon Wright: If she will make a statement on her departmental responsibilities.

Justine Greening: Last week, I visited Lebanon, where I announced that the UK will allocate a further £50 million to help Syrian refugees in Lebanon and Lebanese people in host communities. I also visited Tanzania and Pakistan, and hosted donors and United Nations agencies in London to map out steps on aid co-ordination. Following my visit to Rwanda last month, I would like to inform the House that although the latest assessment of the partnership principles has shown some welcome progress, our overall assessment remains that it is not right to release general budget support, and we will re-programme the payment of £16 million to support specific education and poverty alleviation programmes.

Simon Wright: In 2010, the UK provided much-needed help to the people of Haiti following the outbreak of cholera. However, an NGO has recently raised concerns that five of the seven recommendations of a UN report on the epidemic have been either only partially implemented or not implemented at all. Will the Secretary of State urgently investigate those concerns?

Justine Greening: I had the chance to visit Haiti earlier this year, and I understand my hon. Friend’s concerns. The report he is talking about has not yet been formally endorsed by the UN or peer-reviewed, but I can assure him that the UK’s contribution to tackling cholera in Haiti has been substantial since 2010. We have provided support for more than 1.3 million people.

Ivan Lewis: Members on both sides of the House will be extremely concerned at the latest outbreak of violence in eastern Democratic Republic of the Congo. The DRC needs better political leadership, and an army and police force worthy of the name. It also requires the Secretary of State to provide effective
	leadership, so will she confirm to the House that UK budget support will be reinstated to the Government of Rwanda only if they cease all support for the M23 and militia activities in eastern DRC?

Justine Greening: The hon. Gentleman obviously was not listening to my opening statement in topical questions, so I refer him back to that.

Jeremy Lefroy: What indications has my right hon. Friend received from fellow G8 development Ministers that they will also meet their commitments on providing 0.7% of gross national income, given that their money is also needed to maintain the impressive gains made in tackling the scourges of maternal and child mortality?

Justine Greening: I pay tribute to some Scandinavian countries that have also reached the 0.7%—indeed, they have exceeded it. I regularly raise this issue with other EU development Ministers and with other donor countries.

Catherine McKinnell: HIV/AIDS is a devastating illness affecting 34 million people worldwide, 69% of whom are in sub-Saharan Africa. This week, the White House published its HIV/AIDS strategy, so when will the Government commit to publishing one for the UK?

Lynne Featherstone: We are in the middle of reviewing our HIV position paper. I have just returned from a round table meeting in South Africa that examined this issue. It is an important issue and we are on it.

Mark Spencer: The Secretary of State will be aware that there is a new Government in Pakistan. Will she update the House on how she plans to co-operate with and support Pakistan to bring stability to the region?

Justine Greening: I was in Pakistan last week, when I had the chance to meet senior members of the Government and at the provincial level. We will be—[Interruption.]

Mr Speaker: Order. The Secretary of State is answering questions on extremely important matters, which have an impact on some of the most vulnerable people on the face of the planet. We ought to do her and the House a service by preserving some calm.

Justine Greening: Thank you very much, Mr Speaker. We will continue to work with the new Government on stability in border areas. I am sure the House will be delighted to hear that I agreed a tax package with Pakistan’s Government that will see Her Majesty’s Revenue and Customs going in to help them broaden their tax base and improve their tax collection.

Kelvin Hopkins: Will the Secretary of State tell the House what assurances the Burmese President has given the UK about respect for human rights in Burma, and, specifically, the treatment of Rohingya community, during his recent visit to Britain?

Justine Greening: I had a chance to meet the Burmese President earlier this week, when I did raise those issues, particularly the importance of access for humanitarian support. I hope I managed to get his assurances that the Burmese Government will work with us as we try to improve the lot of those people and will play a leadership role in reducing ethnic tensions.

Mr Speaker: I might tell the hon. Gentleman that I met the President here yesterday and I conveyed some of those messages on behalf of colleagues.

Mike Freer: The UK contributes £30 million a year to the Palestinian Authority’s general budget. Does the Secretary of State agree that the pooled and general nature of that budget means that it is impossible to track how all donor money is actually spent?

Alan Duncan: UK funding to the Palestinian Authority is used specifically to pay civil servants’ salaries, and that is subject to audit. It is absolutely right, and essential for peace, that we continue to support the Palestinian Authority.

Hugh Bayley: In a Westminster Hall debate on 4 July, the Minister of State, who has just left the Front Bench, said that he would take on board my concerns about workers in debt bondage in Pakistan. Will he undertake to get the DFID office in Pakistan to write a plan of action over the summer and then to make a written statement when the House comes back in September?

Justine Greening: I am sure that I can speak on my right hon. Friend’s behalf by assuring the hon. Gentleman that we will follow up his comments in that Westminster Hall debate. We have a close working relationship with the new Pakistan Government and it will involve improving the lot of workers.

PRIME MINISTER

The Prime Minister was asked—

Engagements

Nicholas Dakin: If he will list his official engagements for Wednesday 17 July.

David Cameron: This morning I had meetings with ministerial colleagues and others. In addition to my duties in this House, I shall have further such meetings later today.

Nicholas Dakin: People using Scunthorpe general hospital today are asking for reassurance. Given that Sir Bruce Keogh says that now is not the time for hasty reactions or recriminations, will the Prime Minister commit the resource and support—as well as setting the challenge—to ensure that the hospital delivers high-quality care across all its departments?

David Cameron: First, let me echo what the hon. Gentleman says about the Keogh report. That good report says that even those hospitals facing these challenges that have been investigated have many instances of excellent care. On resources, the Government are putting the money in—£12.7 billion extra over this Parliament—and
	we are going to help the hospitals that are challenged to ensure that they provide the very best that they can in our NHS.

Richard Harrington: I am sure that you, Mr Speaker, will be as delighted as I am that unemployment in Watford has fallen once again—to its lowest level since the end of 2009. Does the Prime Minister agree that that is a good example of how the Government’s policies are working for small businesses, because those businesses were the ones providing the 1,000 jobs and apprenticeships that were shown at the Watford jobs fair two weeks ago?

David Cameron: My hon. Friend is absolutely right that today’s unemployment figures are welcome. They show a very large fall in the claimant count—20,000 in the past month—and encouraging signs of employment growth, some of which is due to the extra resources that we put into apprenticeships. We can be proud of the fact that more than 1 million people will have started apprenticeships in this Parliament, and I hope that the fall in unemployment is welcomed across the House.

Edward Miliband: The vast majority of doctors and nurses working in the NHS perform to a very high standard day in, day out, but everyone in the country will be worried that some hospitals are letting people down. Sir Bruce Keogh’s excellent and important report found
	“frequent examples of inadequate numbers of nursing staff”.
	Will the Prime Minister tell the House what he is doing to ensure that there are adequate numbers of nurses in the health service?

David Cameron: First, let me agree with the right hon. Gentleman that the Keogh report is excellent. When there is a problem of relatively high mortality rates in some hospitals, it is right to hold an investigation to get to the truth, and then to take action to deal with the situation.
	The right hon. Gentleman asks what steps we will take. We are putting £12.7 billion into the NHS and, over the course of the past year, we have seen an extra 900 nurses in our NHS, which backs up the 8,500 extra clinical staff in place since this Government came to office.

Edward Miliband: But the reality is that there are 4,000 fewer nurses than when the Prime Minister came to power. Nursing staff was one of the issues raised in Sir Bruce’s report, and that was also reflected in the Francis report with regard to benchmarks for nursing staff numbers. Given that there are 4,000 fewer nurses, will the Prime Minister say whether that is helping or hindering the process of sorting out the problems?

David Cameron: The right hon. Gentleman makes a link between the 11 hospitals that have been put into special measures and nursing numbers, but he might be interested in the figures. Eight of those 11 identified hospitals have more nurses today than in 2010. For instance, although Scunthorpe hospital is on that list of 11 hospitals, an extra 100 nurses are working there compared with three years ago. In addition, 10 of those 11 hospitals have higher numbers of clinical staff. The
	Francis report did not support mandatory nursing numbers, but let me say this: all well-run hospitals will have the right number of nurses, doctors and care assistants. One of the purposes of these reports is to ensure that hospitals are better run.

Edward Miliband: The reality is that the Prime Minister’s reforms are diverting money from patient care and that across the health service the number of nurses is falling. Let me turn to one of the biggest health problems the country faces: deaths from cancer. The Government planned legislation on plain cigarette packaging but changed their view after the Prime Minister hired Lynton Crosby, who also happens to work for big tobacco in the shape of Philip Morris. Are we really supposed to believe that is a coincidence?

David Cameron: First, it is clear that the right hon. Gentleman does not want to have a proper conversation about the health service and that he has not done his homework on nursing numbers. He asks about plain packaging for cigarettes. Let me be absolutely clear about this: the decision not to go ahead for the time being was made by me and the Health Secretary. If the right hon. Gentleman does not agree with that decision, he can attack me for making it. Funny enough, it is the same decision the previous Government made. I have here the letter that the former Labour Secretary of State for Health wrote to another Minister, the right hon. Member for Dulwich and West Norwood (Dame Tessa Jowell), explaining why he was not going ahead. He said this:
	“No studies have shown that introducing plain packaging of tobacco products would cut the number of young people smoking… Given the impact that plain packaging would have… we would need strong and convincing evidence”
	in order to go ahead. He did not go ahead. Let me summarise: if the Leader of the Opposition’s attack on me is that we are not doing something he decided not to do, I suggest a different line of questioning.

Edward Miliband: Once again the Prime Minister does not know his facts, because in February 2010 my right hon. Friend the Member for Leigh (Andy Burnham), in his tobacco strategy, set out quite clearly that he was in favour of plain cigarette packaging, and that quote is from before then. Here is the difference: my right hon. Friend moved to that position in February 2010; but the Prime Minister used to be in favour of plain cigarette packaging and then changed his mind. Can he now answer the question that he has not answered for weeks: has he ever had a conversation with Lynton Crosby about plain cigarette packaging?

David Cameron: I have answered the question: he has never lobbied me on anything. If the right hon. Gentleman wants a lobbying scandal, why does he not try the fact that the trade unions buy his policies, buy his candidates and even bought and paid for his leadership? That is a scandal, and he should do something about it.

Edward Miliband: The whole country will have heard the same weasel words that the Prime Minister is sticking to. He cannot deny that he had a conversation with Lynton Crosby about this issue. Even by the standards
	of this Prime Minister, this is a disgraceful episode. His own hon. Friend the Member for Totnes (Dr Wollaston) described it as
	“A day of shame for this government.”
	He is the Prime Minister for Benson and Hedge funds, and he knows it. Can he not see that there is a devastating conflict of interest between having a key adviser raking it in from big tobacco and then advising him not to go ahead with plain packaging?

David Cameron: All this on a day when this Government are doing something the Labour party never did for 13 years: publishing a lobbying Bill. Let us remember why we need a lobbying Bill. We had former Labour Ministers describing themselves as cabs for hire, Cabinet Ministers giving passports for favours and a Prime Minister questioned by the police over cash for honours. They are in no position to lecture anyone on standards in public life. Is it not remarkable that on a day of a massive fall in the claimant count, a fall in unemployment and a rise in employment the right hon. Gentleman has nothing to say, and is not this the reason: last year he said that
	“next year, unemployment will get worse, not better, under his policies. Nothing that he can say can deny that”—[Official Report, 18 January 2012; Vol. 538, c. 739.]?
	Is it not time he withdrew that and admitted he was wrong?

Edward Miliband: The reality the Prime Minister cannot admit is that against the advice of every major public health organisation he has caved in to big tobacco. That is the reality about this Prime Minister and he knows it. It is Andy Coulson all over again. He is a Prime Minister who does not think the rules apply to him. Dinners for donors, Andy Coulson, and now big tobacco in Downing street—he always stands up for the wrong people.

David Cameron: The reason the right hon. Gentleman’s leadership is in crisis is that he cannot talk about the big issues. We are getting to the end of a political session when the deficit is down, unemployment is falling, crime is down, welfare is capped, and Abu Qatada is back in Jordan. Every day this country is getting stronger and every day he is getting weaker.

Sarah Wollaston: I know that the Prime Minister will want to thank all the fantastic NHS staff who are rolling up their sleeves and doing everything they can to reduce avoidable early deaths. They are asking the Prime Minister for minimum unit pricing in order to help them do their job and stop people falling into addiction in the first place. Minimum pricing is sitting nervously on death row. Will the Prime Minister give it a reprieve, at least until we know the outcome from the Sheffield report and the Scottish courts?

David Cameron: First of all, let me say that my hon. Friend fights a strong and noble campaign on this issue that she cares a huge amount about, and I respect that. What we are able to do—[Interruption.]

Mr Speaker: Order. The question has been asked; let us hear the answer.

David Cameron: We will be able to introduce something that the last Government never did, which is to say that it should be illegal to sell alcohol below the price of duty plus VAT. That is something, with all the binge-drinking problems we had under Labour, that they never managed to do.

Wayne David: In February I asked the Prime Minister if he thought it was fair that Mr and Mrs Goodwin, both of whom are registered blind, should pay the bedroom tax. He promised to look into the case. Mr and Mrs Goodwin’s family wrote to the Prime Minister but did not receive a reply. Why does he not keep his word?

David Cameron: I will look urgently at this case, because I reply to hon. Members’ correspondence right across the House, and I always will. We have put in place very fair rules on the spare room subsidy, whereby it does not affect pensioners and does not affect people who need to have that spare room. Perhaps when I do write back there is one question I will not be able to answer, which is that we still do not know whether Labour is going to replace this, because they will not give us an answer.

Graham Stuart: Will the Prime Minister assure me that while Labour Members are in Blackpool this summer on their Unite beach towels his Government, free both from weak leadership and from Len McCluskey, will not put into law welfare benefits as a human right?

David Cameron: My hon. Friend makes a good point, because last week there was a rare piece of candour from Labour Members. They now have a welfare reform they are in favour of: they want to make welfare a human right. That is the policy of the Labour party. They opposed the welfare cap, they opposed the reforms to housing benefit, they opposed getting the deficit down, and now they want to make it a human right to give people benefits.

Gregory Campbell: Will the Prime Minister—[Interruption.]

Mr Speaker: Order. Let us have some order. Mr Campbell must be heard.

Gregory Campbell: Thank you, Mr Speaker.
	Will the Prime Minister join me in wishing a speedy recovery to my right hon. Friend the Member for Belfast North (Mr Dodds), who was injured when seeking to resolve problems in his constituency during the recent unacceptable disturbances? Will he also join with many in Northern Ireland who want to see the initiative headed up by Dr Richard Haass from the United States of America, which will require considerable effort and good will to resolve all the outstanding parading issues, which have been plagued by violent opposition for far too long?

David Cameron: Everyone across the House will have been very concerned to hear the news about the right hon. Member for Belfast North (Mr Dodds) being knocked unconscious at the protests in his constituency. Everyone wishes him well and I gather he is now improving. We look forward to welcoming him back to this House.
	On the issue, it is very important that we see responsibility on all sides in Northern Ireland and that we take steps, as the hon. Member for East Londonderry (Mr Campbell) suggests, to make sure that these marches can go ahead in a way that respects the fact that communities must be good neighbours to each other. That is what is required in Northern Ireland and I know my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State will help in any way she can.

Foreign National Prisoners

Philip Hollobone: How many foreign national prisoners (a) are in prison and (b) were in prison in May 2010; and what steps are being taken to send them to secure detention in their own countries and to negotiate compulsory prisoner transfer agreements with high-volume countries.

David Cameron: Overall, over 4,500 foreign national offenders were removed from the UK in 2012 and the annual removal rate has remained broadly consistent since then. However, the number of foreign nationals in prison in England and Wales is still far too high, and while it is lower than at the election, we can do more. That is why the Justice Secretary is working to secure compulsory prisoner transfer agreements with those countries with the highest populations of foreign offenders. The Government will make it clear in the immigration Bill this autumn that foreign national offenders will be deported except in exceptional circumstances. I think that everyone in this House can celebrate the removal of one foreign prisoner, Mr Abu Qatada, who has returned to Jordan, and I congratulate the Home Secretary on her hard work.

Philip Hollobone: Now that my right hon. Friend and the Home Secretary have deported Abu Qatada—something the previous Government completely failed to do—will he do all he can to send foreign nationals in prison in our country back to prison in their own country, which would save British taxpayers hundreds of millions of pounds?

David Cameron: I absolutely agree with my hon. Friend on this issue and the fact that it requires real drive from the centre of this Government. That is why we have held a National Security Council meeting on it and why we are trying to sign compulsory prisoner transfer agreements with countries such as Albania and Nigeria. I make sure that all Ministers raise these issues in all their meetings with other countries where there are foreign national prisoners to be returned to. We should not rule out any steps, including in some cases helping countries such as Jamaica with their own prison regime so that it is easier to return people. This is a major priority for the Government and I want us to do better.

Engagements

Emma Reynolds: The Prime Minister claims that he did not know that Lynton Crosby worked for big tobacco, yet Crosby is at the heart of Tory party policy and strategy. Why is the Prime Minister developing a bad habit—perhaps an addictive one—of turning a blind eye to who his advisers actually work for?

David Cameron: Let me explain to the hon. Lady: the role of Lynton Crosby is to advise me on how to defeat a divided and useless Labour party, but I have to say that on the basis of today’s evidence I am not sure he is really necessary.

Glyn Davies: rose—[Interruption.]

Mr Speaker: Order. We must hear the question from Mr Davies.

Glyn Davies: In my Welsh constituency, patients have to wait 36 weeks for elective treatment, while the figure in the English constituency of Shropshire next door is 18 weeks. What lessons does the Prime Minister believe the Government can learn about how the NHS has been managed in Wales over recent years?

David Cameron: There is a very clear lesson, which is do not vote Labour, because people can see what is happening in Wales, where Labour is in control of the NHS. It cut the budget by 8% and as a result Wales has not met a single waiting time target since 2009. Meanwhile, in England we are increasing spending on the NHS. The shadow Chancellor keeps pointing at the shadow Health Secretary, but the fact is that the shadow Health Secretary is the man who said it would be irresponsible to increase spending on the NHS. I have a summer tip for the leader of the Labour party: if you want to do better, you need to move the two people next to you and you need to do it fast.

Paul Flynn: Will the Prime Minister—[Interruption.]

Mr Speaker: Order. Just as I said for Mr Davies, Mr Flynn should be heard with courtesy.

Paul Flynn: Will the Prime Minister study the precise meaning of the word “question” and the precise meaning of the word “answer”, and consider the need for a link between the two following the record number of unanswered questions and pre-prepared party-political jibes last week at Question Time, which was a demeaning spectacle that shamed him and his office? Will he make a start by giving me an answer to this question that is both relevant and courteous?

David Cameron: That question was a bit complicated for a Whip’s handout, so the hon. Gentleman probably did think of it himself. This Government are far more transparent than any of our predecessors in the information that we publish and the public spending data that we provide. We are far more transparent than the last Government.

Michael Ellis: I am pleased to say that unemployment in Northampton North continues to go down. Does the Prime Minister agree that today’s jobs figures prove that the Government’s economic policy has not led to “the disappearance of a million…jobs”, which was the forecast of the Leader of the Opposition?

David Cameron: It is extraordinary that on a day when there has been a fall in unemployment, the Leader of the Opposition had nothing to say about it. In fact, I have done a bit of checking and he has not asked a full set of questions about the economy since February, because he knows that our policies are working and Britain’s economy is mending. My hon. Friend is absolutely right that the forecast was made that we would not make up for the loss of public sector jobs with jobs in the private sector—[Interruption.] I know that Labour Members are shouting. They are shouting because they do not want to hear good news about falling unemployment, but people want to hear about more jobs, more businesses and progress in our economy.

Mr Speaker: There is too much shouting on both sides of the House, not just on one side. That is the reality.

Emma Lewell-Buck: How many of the Conservative party’s millionaire donors asked the Prime Minister to cut the 50p top rate of tax?

David Cameron: That was definitely a Whip’s handout—there is no doubt about that one. Let me explain to the hon. Lady an important distinction—[Interruption.]

Mr Speaker: Order. Let us calm down and hear the answer.

David Cameron: The top rate of tax will be higher in every year of this Government than it was in any year under the previous Government. Let me explain how it works in the hon. Lady’s party: the trade unions give Labour money and that buys the policies, it buys the candidates, it buys the MPs and it even buys the leader. I am not surprised if they are worried about the product that they have ended up with.

David Burrowes: Enfield has had the early advantage of a welfare cap for the past three months. With jobseeker’s allowance claims in Enfield falling at twice the rate of claims in the rest of the country and with youth unemployment in Enfield at the lowest level since early 2009, will the Prime Minister ensure that where Enfield leads, the nation follows?

David Cameron: I join my hon. Friend in paying tribute to the people in Enfield who have found work. Not only is the welfare cap right because it would be wrong for people who are out of work to be able to earn more than the typical family that is in work, but it is working because the figures show how many people, seeing that a welfare cap is coming down the road, are getting out there, looking for work and finding jobs. That is good news for them and good news for our economy.

Stephen Timms: Would Mr Adrian Beecroft have been asked to provide a report for the Government on employment regulation if he had not been a major donor to the Conservative party?

David Cameron: The right hon. Gentleman speaks as a member of Unite and someone who receives £6,000 for his constituency party. Adrian Beecroft produced an excellent report on encouraging enterprise, jobs and wealth creation. Let me explain the big difference one more time. The trade unions that give money to the Labour party can pick the candidates and vote for them, pick the leader and vote for him, and pick the policies and vote for them. I was elected by a one member, one vote system; the leader of the Labour party was elected by a trade union stitch-up.

Andrew George: Any Government should of course be able to introduce a reasonable cap on very high claims for taxpayer-funded benefits. However, if we are all in it together, why are the Government resisting the introduction of a cap on the taxpayer-funded benefits amounting to hundreds of thousands of pounds and, in some individual cases, more than £1 million that go to the largest and wealthiest landowners in the country through the farm support system?

David Cameron: This Government have done a huge amount on tax reform to ensure that people pay the taxes they owe. Of course, we always look at the common agricultural policy to make sure that it is fair.

George Howarth: In order to save the Prime Minister a little bit of time, I have been a member of the Unite union since I joined at the age of 16 as an engineering apprentice. I am happy to debate who spent their youth more productively. On 26 June, in response to a question from my hon. Friend the Member for Ealing North (Stephen Pound) on Tory dinners for donors, the Prime Minister said that he would be happy to publish the Gold report. Is the reason he has not done so because he is ashamed of the fact that his party has had more donors than a late-night kebab shop?

David Cameron: It is that time in Prime Minister’s questions when we ought to remember the donation of Mr Mills, the man who gave £1.6 million to the Labour party and got advice about how to dodge his taxes. When we get an answer to when the Labour party is going to pay that money back, I will answer the right hon. Gentleman’s question.

Cheryl Gillan: While still hoping that the Prime Minister will agree with the CBI and me and withdraw support for HS2, he will remember last November giving me an undertaking that people disrupted by this project would be fairly and generously compensated. Is he aware that on phase 1, HS2 Ltd has not yet rerun the basic consultation on compensation, and on current plans will not do so for two or three months? Will he please intervene and speed up this process before those constituents, and others whose lives are affected, are totally ruined by this flawed project?

David Cameron: My right hon. Friend is absolutely right to raise this matter. We will be setting out further consultation later this year, as we have previously announced. We are committed to a very generous and fair compensation scheme. Matters relating to compensation
	are very important, which is why we have to consider them carefully and make sure that we get the decisions right. My right hon. Friend the Transport Secretary will be happy to meet her and discuss her constituents’ concerns.

Helen Goodman: The Prime has been helping Jersey-registered companies with their exports. Perhaps he could tell the House whether the reason he took Petrofac’s Ayman Asfari with him to Kazakhstan was because he had donated £300,000 to the Tory party.

David Cameron: First, let us remember which Government made sure that Jersey, Guernsey, the Isle of Man and all the others paid taxes properly—it was this one. I will tell the hon. Lady directly why I took Ayman Asfari to Kazakhstan: Petrofac is a company that employs tens of thousands of people in this country. It is investing billions in the North sea and is a major British energy company. I am proud of the fact that we fly the flag for British energy companies, so when I have finished taking them to Kazakhstan, I will be taking them to India, to China and to Malaysia. We are not embarrassed about business, industry, enterprise and jobs on this side of the House—we want more of them.

Peter Tapsell: During my right hon. Friend’s friendly discussions with Chancellor Merkel, did they examine the evidence that the existence of the European single currency is a major cause of the despair now sweeping across southern Europe, threatening the democracy of Portugal, Spain and Greece?

David Cameron: When I meet Chancellor Merkel we often discuss the single currency. It is important, whatever one’s views about the single currency—I never want Britain to join—that we respect countries that are in the single currency and want to make it work. At the same time, I believe that there is an opportunity for Britain to argue that the European Union needs to change. We need to make this organisation one that both members of the single currency and members who are not in the single currency can be comfortable in. I think Chancellor Merkel understands that. I also think that Prime Minister Letta from Italy, whom I will be meeting straight after questions, understands that point too. That is why I think getting a better settlement for Britain is achievable, and one we can consider in a referendum by the end of 2017.

Steve Reed: The Prime Minister failed to say last week when he would give back the stolen cash that Asil Nadir gave the Conservative party. When will he give it back?

David Cameron: I have to say, the Whips have been very active with the hand-outs this week. What we need to know is when we will get back the taxpayer money from Mr Mills’s donation. Never mind a donation that happened 20 years ago; this happened about 20 weeks ago.

Matthew Offord: One of the first acts of the Government was to agree a request to fund security measures in Jewish voluntary-aided, maintained and free schools. Parents in my constituency and that of
	my hon. Friend the Member for Finchley and Golders Green (Mike Freer) were paying for these additional security measures from their own pockets, because the last Government refused to help. As this funding arrangement ends in 2015, will the Prime Minister support my campaign for the Education Secretary to continue the scheme?

David Cameron: I will look very carefully at what my hon. Friend says. I am a strong supporter of free schools and of the Community Security Trust, which I think has provided a lot of security for schools in his and neighbouring constituencies. My right hon. Friend the Education Secretary will be very happy to look at this issue to see how we can continue to give them support.

Joan Walley: Given the scandal of price fixing in the oil and gas industry currently being investigated by the EU, does the Prime Minister agree that it is important to be absolutely transparent about the oil and gas companies Lynton Crosby’s lobbying firm has represented?

David Cameron: Really, have they got nothing to say about unemployment, improving education or capping welfare? It pains me to point this out to the hon. Lady, but she has received £32,000 from affiliated trade unions. Let me explain the difference: the Conservative party gives Lynton Crosby money to help us get rid of Labour—that is how it works—whereas the unions give Labour money. She said on her website:
	“I am a member of Unison and Unite…and regularly raise trade union issues in parliament.”
	They pay the money in, they get the results out—that is the scandal in British politics.

Simon Hughes: rose—

Hon. Members: Oh no!

Mr Speaker: Order. Mr Hughes’s question will be heard.

Simon Hughes: Many water companies in England have paid huge dividends to their shareholders, have avoided paying tax and are not properly accountable, and in this region are proposing an annual increase of £80 a year on water rates. Will the Prime Minister ensure that no public subsidy is given to Thames Water or any other water company that puts its profits and shareholders ahead of the interests of ordinary ratepayers and taxpayers in his constituency and mine?

David Cameron: First, let me be clear: I have always said that companies should pay the tax they owe. I do not want to comment on an individual company’s business, but that is the case. Any support from the Government must be targeted to benefit customers’ bills and to provide value for taxpayers. There is merit in the Thames tunnel proposal, and we need to look at that carefully, because it would benefit London, including the right hon. Gentleman’s constituents and everyone else living in London, but I can assure him that we will use every tool at our disposal to get the best deal for London, bill payers and taxpayers.

Kate Green: Did the Prime Minister ask Lynton Crosby who his big business clients were before he employed him?

David Cameron: We can run through this one again; let me have another go at explaining. Right, it works like this: the Conservative party gives Lynton Crosby money and he helps us to attack the Labour party, right? The trade unions give money to the Labour party—the other way around—and for that they buy your candidates, they buy your MPs, they buy your policies and they even give you this completely hopeless leader.

Mr Speaker: Last but not least, Mr Andrew Griffiths.

Andrew Griffiths: My constituent, Kelly Bridgett, was diagnosed with cervical cancer at
	the age of 25 when she had her first smear, and sadly she had to have a hysterectomy. Will the Prime Minister join me in congratulating Kelly on her “Drop your pants to save your life” campaign to raise awareness of cervical cancer, and will he talk to the Health Secretary about Kelly’s wish to bring the age at which young women can have a smear down from 25 to 20?

David Cameron: I pay tribute to my hon. Friend and to his constituent for their bravery in raising this campaign and speaking so frankly about it. The screening programmes we have had in the NHS under successive Governments have been one of its greatest successes in terms of early diagnosis of cancer and saving lives. We should always be asking what the latest evidence is for the screening programmes, and when they should start. I am sure that my right hon. Friend the Health Secretary will want to talk to my hon. Friend about this campaign.

Pupil Premium

David Laws: We are today announcing the launch of our consultation on primary assessment and accountability, alongside a significant increase in the pupil premium for primary schools. This is about delivering a step change in aspirations and attainment in primary education, and these proposals are among the most important that our Department has announced since the formation of the coalition Government. We want as many children as possible to be ready for secondary school by the time they leave primary school, and the reforms we are announcing today are designed to ensure that pupils are well prepared for the next stage of their education, and that schools do not allow pupils to fall behind. We are confident that primary schools and pupils can and will rise to that challenge.
	We want to see a step change in attainment at the end of primary school. In the past, the achievement bar was set too low and too few pupils cleared that bar. Our ambition is for all pupils—excepting some of those with particular learning needs—to be ready for secondary school at age 11. That means we need a higher measure of what success looks like. We are already raising the threshold for the percentage of pupils to be ready for secondary school from 60% to 65%, but we know that many schools and teachers have already raised their game way beyond that level. For that reason, in the future we will expect a high proportion of pupils—85%—to reach the new, higher secondary readiness threshold for a school. Since we know that both children and schools can achieve that, it is right that we set it as a minimum standard.
	Our new national curriculum is designed to give schools genuine opportunities to take ownership of the curriculum. The new programmes of study, published on 8 July, set out what pupils should be taught by the end of primary education. Teachers will be able to develop a school curriculum that delivers the core content in a way that is challenging and relevant for their pupils. Statutory assessment in core subjects at the end of key stages is designed primarily to enable robust external accountability. We will continue to prescribe statutory assessment arrangements in English, maths and science. National curriculum tests in English and maths will continue, and will show whether pupils have met a demanding secondary readiness standard, which will remain the same from year to year. We propose to report pupils’ test results as a scaled score to ensure that test outcomes are comparable over time. At the moment, pupils are ranked by levels.In future we will report each pupil’s performance relative to their peers nationally, as well as their levels of progress. This is key information for parents: it will help them easily to see how their child has performed compared with the national cohort of pupils.
	It is vital that we set high aspirations for all schools and pupils. Our new expectations will prepare children for success. At the moment pupils are being asked to reach a bar that too often sets them up for failure rather than success. Indeed we know that over half of pupils who currently reach just the 4C benchmark standard fail to secure five good GCSEs including English and
	maths. So that all children, whatever their circumstances, can arrive in secondary school ready to succeed, we are giving significantly more money to primary school pupils eligible for the pupil premium. That will support the step change in ambition we are announcing today.
	We introduced the pupil premium in 2011 to help schools close the attainment gap for disadvantaged pupils. In 2014-15, total funding through the pupil premium will increase by £625 million to the total of £2.5 billion pledged by the coalition in 2010. We will use the extra funding in the year ahead to increase significantly the level of the pupil premium for primary schools to £1,300 per pupil, compared with £900 in the current year. This 44% rise in the pupil premium next year is the largest cash rise so far. That should enable more targeted interventions to support disadvantaged pupils to be secondary ready and achieve our ambitious expectations for what pupils should know and be able to do by the end of their primary education. Early intervention is crucial: the more disadvantaged pupils who leave primary school with strong literacy and numeracy, the greater their chances of achieving good GCSEs.We will fix the level of the secondary pupil premium in the autumn, but it will rise further, by at least the level of inflation next year.
	We also want to treat schools fairly by acknowledging the performance of schools whose pupils achieve well despite a low starting point, even if that does not reach the very ambitious attainment targets we are setting. We will therefore look at how we can introduce a robust measure of progress that we can take into consideration when holding schools to account.A school that does not achieve the attainment threshold will not be judged to be below the floor standard if its pupils are making good progress. The progress measure will also help identify coasting schools, whose pupils do not achieve their full potential and should be doing much better even if their school is meeting the attainment targets. Ofsted will focus its inspections more closely on schools below and just above floor standards, and inspect schools with good performance on these measures less frequently.
	We will continue to report on the progress pupils make during primary education. In order to measure pupils’ progress, we need to measure how each pupil’s end of key stage 2 test results compare with the results of pupils with similar prior attainment. This is an opportunity to reconsider the structure of statutory assessment early in primary schools. In particular, we are consulting on when we should have a baseline test or assessment to measure pupils’ progress. Currently the baseline against which we measure progress is at the end of key stage 1. We could continue to keep the baseline at this stage. Alternatively, we could introduce a similar teacher-led baseline check early in reception, which would help teachers understand the stage the child has reached and allow the crucial progress made in reception, year 1 and year 2 to be reflected in the accountability system. Many schools do that. Our consultation will seek views on which is the better option.
	Finally, we recognise that teachers are professionals, and we want to give schools more freedom over the way they measure assessment. We have already announced that we will remove the current system of national curriculum levels and level descriptors, which imposes a
	single system and prescribes a detailed sequence for what pupils should be taught. That will leave schools free to decide how to track pupils’ progress. Ofsted will expect to see evidence of pupils’ progress, but inspections will be informed by the pupil tracking data that schools choose to keep.
	Taken together, this combination of measures will ensure that pupils are ready for success in secondary education, and a better start in secondary school will ensure a better start in life. This country is now moving from an education system that served the needs of a minority to a system of high expectation and high standards for every single pupil. Today’s announcements are a key step in that continued journey. I commend this statement to the House.

Stephen Twigg: I thank the Minister of State for advance notice of his statement.
	When Labour came to power in 1997 we inherited a sorry state in the education system. From day one we gave priority to primary education. In 1997 only 59% of 11-year-olds reached the expected level of attainment in maths and 65% in English. By 2010 these figures had risen to 79% and 80% respectively. That was huge progress, but I agree that we need to build on this success. I take the opportunity to pay tribute to the hard work of heads, teachers and support staff in primary schools across the country.
	It is right that we have high expectation for all children in all schools, raising aspiration and unleashing potential. We will engage constructively with this consultation. We know from outstanding primary schools such as Cuckoo Hall primary in Enfield and Westfield community primary school in Wigan that all children can realise their true ability when they receive an excellent education. On leaving primary school, children need to be prepared with the knowledge, the skills and the resilience to take on the secondary curriculum. Despite massive progress, there are still too many children who are ill-equipped when they begin their secondary education.
	Ensuring that all children reach at least the expected levels in maths and English is crucial. High standards of numeracy and literacy are vital; so, too, is a broad and rich curriculum that promotes creativity, enrichment, citizenship and resilience. I worry that the Government’s approach to the curriculum is too narrow and risks selling children short. What assurances can the Minister give that the Government’s changes to the accountability system will promote breadth and depth of learning, as well as literacy and numeracy? He has set out a new floor target of 85%, but that target is for an assessment that the Government have yet to define. Surely that is putting the cart before the horse. Would it not make for better policy to define the learning outcomes first? My worry is that this is another classic case of policy making on the hoof.
	Similarly, the plan for ranking 11-year-olds has all the hallmarks of such an approach. To rank 11-year-olds runs the risk of removing year-on-year consistency, because children will be benchmarked against their peers in their current year, rather than against a common standard. Does the Minister agree that this risks damaging standards by not ensuring consistency over time?
	The Government have sent out confused signals about attainment and progress. On the one hand they are scrapping level descriptors, which heads and teachers tell me are crucial for monitoring progress between assessments, yet on the other hand, the Minister is rightly emphasising progress measures today. That is very confusing. I ask the Government to think again about the abolition of level descriptors.
	On the baseline measure for five-year-olds, there is sense in developing policy about how best to establish prior attainment to provide both teachers and parents with a clear indicator at the start of primary school. The devil will be in the detail, so it is vital that there is full consultation on that.
	Finally, on the pupil premium, additional funding to support the progress of disadvantaged children is welcome. I have seen many schools that have made excellent use of the pupil premium. In his statement, though, the Minister said, “Early intervention is crucial”, and I agree with him. However, how does that sit with the fact that the biggest cuts in spending in his Department have been in early intervention funding? Can the Minister assure the House that additional funding really does mean additional funding?
	I worry that the Minister may—to coin a phrase—be robbing Paul to pay Paul. The Chancellor announced in the spending review that the Government are moving to a national funding formula. The independent Institute for Fiscal Studies has warned that this move could hit schools with large deprived intakes. Can he reassure the House that this really is new money and not simply giving money to schools with a lot of disadvantaged kids today, which is welcome, but taking it away in a couple of years when the national funding formula comes in?

David Laws: It certainly is new money—I will comment on that in greater detail in a moment.
	I welcome the sensible and constructive approach that the hon. Gentleman has taken. I particularly welcome the fact that he has said that he is prepared to engage with us in dealing with some serious and important issues, such as the baseline for measuring progress. It encourages me that we can have a sensible consultation process that genuinely listens and designs a system that will be better and will last for the long term.
	Let me respond briefly to five points that the hon. Gentleman made in his response. First, on the Government’s inheritance, I accept that progress was made under the previous Government, particularly in some parts of the country such as London. However, our inheritance of aspirations at the end of primary level was, frankly, hopelessly low. Even today, we allow schools potentially to pass their floor targets when one third of their pupils or more fail to achieve a basic level of English and maths. Worse still, our very measure of achievement—the 4C measure—leads to more than half the youngsters who achieve just that level failing to get five good GCSEs. In other words, we have been sending out a message about what success looks like at the end of primary school which is totally wrong. Indeed, some of the best schools in the country—including St Joseph’s primary school in Camden, which the Deputy Prime Minister and I visited this morning—have already moved well beyond 4C and in many cases are aiming at much
	higher levels, such as 4A, 5C and so forth. The Government need to catch up with those schools, which are leading the debate in education.
	The second point was about the broadness and richness of the experience in schools. The hon. Gentleman is absolutely right that, although the concentration on English and maths is important, we do not want that to lead to a dramatic narrowing of the curriculum. The other subjects that people take, both academic and vocational—arts, music and sport—are incredibly important. However, no one can succeed in secondary education if they cannot read and add up. No one can enjoy the opportunities in all the other subjects if they are not equipped with those basic skills. I would also refer the hon. Gentleman to the changes we have already announced in the secondary measures of accountability. We will be incentivising schools to take not just five but eight GCSEs, and we will allow that to include vocational as well as academic subjects.
	The third point that the hon. Gentleman made was about whether 85% was the right level and whether we were right to set such an ambitious target now, in advance of the precise measures being introduced in 2016. I think we are right to set out those principles now. The schools that he and I are familiar with, from inner London and elsewhere, are already setting levels of aspiration of 85%, 90% or 95%, at an even higher level than 4B, which I talked about in a speech a couple of months ago, so I think that we are right to raise expectations now. For too long we have had expectations set by very low levels, which are more about the levels set for school intervention than about reasonable aspirations for all schools.
	On the ranking of 11-year-olds, let me make it absolutely clear that we are not talking about publishing information about individual students at a national level. That would of course be totally wrong. What we are talking about is something that I think virtually every parent in the country will welcome, which is more information—and more meaningful information—about how their children are doing. At the moment, apart from a few people in the Department for Education and around the House, level descriptors frankly mean nothing to the average parent. Having a mark, a measure of progress and a clear sense of where their pupil is versus the rest of the cohort is only sensible. Parents could do that at the moment through the levels process, if they could actually understand that process, which is so complicated. What we are doing will help parents, but we will listen to the messages that come back in the consultation.
	Finally, let me turn to the hon. Gentleman’s point about money and early intervention. What we are announcing is about doing a lot more through early intervention. The additional money for the pupil premium that the Government have delivered, even in these times of austerity, is something of which the coalition can feel incredibly proud. The levels we are setting today will mean that the additional money going to pupils from the pupil premium from their time in primary school will be £8,000 or £9,000 per pupil. That is a massive amount to help schools across the country, particularly in disadvantaged areas, to bring children up to a reasonable standard.
	As for early years, the Under-Secretary of State, my hon. Friend the Member for South West Norfolk (Elizabeth Truss), who leads on early years and child care, and the Deputy Prime Minister have announced a two-year offer, which extends early years support to the most disadvantaged two-year-olds, going way beyond anything the previous Government were able to deliver. This Government have a huge amount to be proud of, in offering schools this money to support such ambitious aspirations.

Graham Stuart: The Select Committee on Education had some outstanding head teachers before it this morning, talking about the possible setting up of a college of teaching. One point they all made was about their desire for greater continuity in policy making. I therefore congratulate the Minister on making the offer to the Opposition, and the Opposition on their response in turn, to ensure a common policy that gives stability to education. With the increase in funding for the pupil premium, can he say what role he sees for subject specialists at primary level to help to raise attainment not just in English and maths, but across the broad swathe of subjects to which he has referred?

David Laws: I welcome the comments of the Chairman of the Select Committee. He is absolutely right that we need to aim for greater continuity in education policy. After all, we are talking about young people who, even individually, will take a considerable number of years to go through the education system. We want to ensure as much cross-party consensus as possible on some of the changes, so that they last.
	My hon. Friend is also absolutely right that the additional money will give primary schools the opportunity to bring in greater subject specialism, which will help to boost the quality of teaching not just in English and maths, but in all the other subjects, which are so crucial and which the hon. Member for Liverpool, West Derby (Stephen Twigg) mentioned earlier.

Fiona Mactaggart: I welcome the focus on primary education in the statement, which is a good thing. It is time we had that focus. I also welcome the extra spending on primary education, but I am worried about the proposal for national examinations at the age of three as well as at 11. May I urge the Minister to drop the exams for three-year-olds? As someone who represents a town where most of the pupils already do the 11-plus, let me tell him that the consequences for children—as well as for parents—of knowing that they are at the bottom of the list need to be examined. It breaks my heart every year when I have children in my constituency surgery—hauled in by their parents—who do not have the bicycle for passing the 11-plus and are going to a school that they never applied to as a result.

David Laws: I am grateful to the hon. Lady for the early comments she made. I should point out that what we are talking about is on entry to school, not at a ridiculous age. [Interruption.] Frankly, many schools—to which I would be happy to take the hon. Member for Bishop Auckland (Helen Goodman), who is shouting from a sedentary position—are already doing that type of assessment. They are doing it to inform their education
	and also to measure progress. We have descriptors at the moment that classify some young people as the lowest performers. That information is available at the moment; it is just very difficult for anyone to understand. Why should we impede parents in understanding more what their pupils are doing in schools?
	I am particularly grateful to the hon. Member for Liverpool, West Derby, who leads for the Labour party on these issues, for being pragmatic. Although I quite understand the concerns about assessing youngsters at an early age, the logic of measuring progress, which is not in dispute in this House or among head teachers, teachers or parents, means that it is rational to measure progress right across the educational experience. It is not rational simply to pick an arbitrary date at the end of key stage 1 and to measure progress only from there. That is why we think it is sensible to have this debate.

Nick Gibb: I congratulate my right hon. Friend on his statement today, and particularly on the abolition of the meaningless and distorting levels in key stage assessment. Does he agree that the substantial rise in the pupil premium will mean that every school should now be able to ensure that all children, regardless of their background, will be fluent readers and fluent in arithmetic—including long division, long multiplication and fractions—by the time they leave primary school? Does he also agree that there will no longer be any excuse for an attainment gap between those from poorer and wealthier backgrounds?

David Laws: My hon. Friend is absolutely right. It is reassuring to be able to visit schools with very large numbers of disadvantaged youngsters, such as the one I mentioned earlier, and to see that the attainment gaps have now been extinguished. This shows schools across the country that it is possible to close that gap, and that that is not just the perspective of some DFE Minister but the experience of schools across the land that are achieving that. The huge amounts of money that we are now putting into the pupil premium and other disadvantage funding for schools with disadvantaged youngsters will remove what were legitimate excuses 10 or 20 years ago about the absence of the resources necessary to achieve these big changes. I pay tribute to my hon. Friend, who did so much in his time in the Department to champion higher standards and to pave the way for much of what is in today’s statement.

Alex Cunningham: Early intervention is certainly the key to the future for the hundreds of children in my constituency who have a much tougher start in life than most people. How will the Minister ensure that the pupil premium is targeted specifically on individuals rather than being swallowed up by the wider school budgets, and how will he hold head teachers to account for looking after those individuals?

David Laws: That is an absolutely crucial point. The Department is not going to go back to the fashion under some previous Secretaries of State of micro-managing individual schools and telling them what interventions they need to deliver. Schools have a better understanding of the interventions that will work for the school and the individuals than we will ever do, sitting in a Department in London. However, we are going to hold schools to account for ensuring that whatever interventions they
	use are successful. We have worked closely with Ofsted to ensure that this is a key part of the accountability process for schools, and that there is a much greater focus by Ofsted on narrowing the gap. The chief inspector has made it clear that schools will no longer be ranked outstanding if they are failing in this key area, and there will be a requirement on schools that are not delivering a good standard to commission support from key leaders in education, such as national leaders of education, to bring advice into the school when it is failing to narrow the gaps. We have also recently appointed the widely respected John Dunford, who has great experience in education, to serve as a champion of the pupil premium and to spread the message about best practice to schools across the country.

Laura Sandys: Picking up on best practice, the primary school in the poorest ward in my constituency, Newington, has seen a 40% increase in standards in English and maths. The head teacher puts that down solely to the pupil premium so, locally, people will be very pleased with this suite of measures. One measure that seems to be being misinterpreted is the assessment of three-year-olds. Responsible teachers will make an assessment of the young people coming into their school so that they can put the right measures in place. It is not an exam, as has been suggested by some Opposition Members.

David Laws: My hon. Friend is absolutely right. Many schools are already using baseline assessment on entry to school; that is the rational thing to do. It is also the most rational way of measuring progress, rather than doing it over an arbitrary period. I also agree with her that the additional money for the pupil premium and the additional accountability and focus will be crucial to narrowing the gap. The huge amounts of money going into schools with large numbers of pupil-premium pupils will result in some dramatic and impressive progress over the next few years in improving the lot of young people from those backgrounds.

Helen Goodman: What the Minister is saying reveals nothing other than his lack of understanding of small children and of child development. What is appropriate at 16, at 14 and at 11 is not appropriate at five. For five-year-olds, learning should be enjoyable, pleasurable and fun. Does he not understand that if he formalises these assessments, he will produce anxious teachers, anxious parents and anxious children?

David Laws: I am afraid that the mood of consensus has come to an end. The hon. Lady is completely wrong. These assessments are already being completed in schools up and down the land, and most pupils do not even know that they are going through some great baseline assessment process. They just think that they are doing the sort of things that children do in schools. What is the logic of measuring progress, giving it huge status and talking about its importance, which we all do, if we then say that we will measure progress only from halfway through primary education? That does not make sense.

Neil Carmichael: I greatly welcome the statement, not least because of the powerful point that Sir Michael Wilshaw made in his “Unseen Children” report recently. That report provides full justification
	for the measures that my right hon. Friend has announced. Will he reassure the House that the thrust of the measures will also tackle schools in rural and coastal areas, given the clear underachievement that has been identified in them?

David Laws: I entirely agree with my hon. Friend. The reports by Ofsted and others highlight the real risk of focusing only on schools with large numbers of disadvantaged youngsters. Of course those schools are important, and they will get the largest amount out of the pupil premium, but the schools with only a modest number of such youngsters will no longer be able to hide behind high overall attainment figures. Our focus on progress will ensure that the schools that are getting high levels of attainment but not delivering enough for all their pupils will be obliged to do so. The accountability measures will also ensure that we pick up any large gaps in performance between disadvantaged pupils and the rest, whether they are in our inner cities, the leafiest parts of the country or our coastal communities.

Andrew Love: I welcome the additional resources for the pupil premium. The Minister said that this was additional funding. Perhaps he could tell us exactly where it is coming from. Also, he avoided answering the question from my hon. Friend the Member for Liverpool, West Derby (Stephen Twigg) on the national funding formula and the possibility that the campaign by Conservative Back Benchers to narrow the gap between well funded and less well funded schools would inevitably undermine the pupil premium.

David Laws: The money is coming from the Chancellor of the Exchequer, as the money coming into the DFE does, and it is additional money. This is a fantastic settlement for schools in a time of incredible austerity in the public finances. Whichever party was in government at this time would have to grapple with difficult decisions. The fact that we have built this programme on a protected schools budget is fantastic news for schools. I can tell the hon. Gentleman that when I go round the country to schools, especially those with large numbers of disadvantaged youngsters, they are really conscious of the additional money and they positively welcome it. On the national funding formula, I can assure him that we are determined to introduce a fairer mechanism of funding across the country, and we will ensure that we do it in a way that does not undermine the strong focus on funding disadvantaged areas that we have adopted while we have been in government.

Duncan Hames: I congratulate the Minister on his announcement on the pupil premium. This is another promise from the front cover of the Liberal Democrat manifesto at the last election that we have delivered in government. However, not every school I visit has been able to tell me how its pupil premium money is being spent. Does he agree that, if the pupil premium is to deliver on the ambition that we share for it, the parents of all disadvantaged pupils should be told how that money is being spent to help their children?

David Laws: I agree with my hon. Friend on both those points. Schools already have a duty at the very least to put on their websites the ways in which they are spending
	that money and to be as clear as possible with parents and pupils, rather than simply putting broad statements on their websites. The schools that have so far not realised what the money is for—if there are such schools—or that are not spending it effectively will soon find that they have no choice other than to focus on what the money is designed for, because this is now a key part of the Ofsted inspection framework. In my experience, the one thing that teachers and head teachers pay very close attention to is the chief inspector of schools.

Chi Onwurah: Primary school teachers in Newcastle do tremendous work, maximising the educational opportunities of children often in very challenging circumstances. They will welcome this additional money, but to justify that welcome, will the Minister confirm whether this is additional money to what has already been announced in the comprehensive spending review?

David Laws: It is the allocation of the last tranche of pupil premium money, which is additional money. What that says is that having announced almost £1.9 billion of pupil premium money so far, we have taken the very deliberate decision for the final tranche of extra money that we have allocated in the last year to go predominantly to primary schools to support this intervention. It is additional money.

Angela Watkinson: Children arriving in reception classes without basic speech and language skills face additional challenges, as do their teachers, in working towards secondary transfer. Will the Minister encourage schools to promote public library membership for very young children, as is happening in the London borough of Havering, which has introduced automatic enrolment for reception children and support packages for parents so that children are introduced to books and can take them home to enjoy all the benefits that flow from them?

David Laws: The hon. Lady makes a crucial point. I think schools should encourage pupils to access libraries. In my experience, many schools are already doing very good work these days in school to make sure that young people are encouraged to read and enjoy books, but the hon. Lady is quite right to point out that we have a very effective public library service, which should also be used by schools.

Mark Reckless: Will the Minister clarify whether the pupil premium is an addition to the general budget of the school or should it be spent only on those pupils who attract the premium?

David Laws: The money is there to be spent on those disadvantaged youngsters who would otherwise be highly likely to have poor performance. Schools must understand that that is the purpose of the money and why they are getting it. They are free to decide how to spend it, but they must spend it to narrow these gaps and focus on pupils who are the priority for the premium.

Stewart Jackson: I welcome this statement and I will focus on the pupil premium. One of the regrettable reasons why Peterborough local
	educational authority languishes at the bottom of the league table for educational attainment for disadvantaged children relates to the issue of English as an additional language. I shall meet the Minister in September to discuss these issues. Will he look again at incorporating in the methodology for awarding the pupil premium the important issue of English as an additional language, which is significant for the allocation of resources and will drive up educational attainment in Peterborough and across the country?

David Laws: My hon. Friend makes a very important point—that youngsters with English as an additional language often face challenges, particularly when they go into schools. As my hon. Friend will know, however, they often make extremely rapid progress, performing above the level of young people who have English as their first language. We will take the opportunity provided by the review of the national funding formula to make sure that we get proper support for young people with English as an additional language so that schools have the right amount of money for the right amount of time to help these children to perform well.

Bob Stewart: What advice would the Minister give to head teachers about parents, albeit a small percentage of them, who simply do not encourage their children to perform academically? What can be done about that?

David Laws: What is very encouraging—the head teacher of the primary school that the Deputy Prime Minister and I visited this morning spoke to us about it—is that many schools nowadays are not simply sitting back and waiting for parents to engage and shrugging their shoulders when they do not. Many of the best schools in the most deprived communities are going out to engage with reluctant parents and they often have considerable success in persuading those parents that education is important for their young children’s future. This can be a way of engaging parents who might not have had good educational experiences themselves, potentially enriching their own lives by contact with the school. I would encourage head teachers and teachers with parents of the type that my hon. Friend describes to visit some of the schools that are doing this work very well, as I think they could learn a tremendous amount from them.

Justin Tomlinson: It was a great pleasure to welcome the Schools Minister on his visit to Seven Fields primary school. The school’s transformation was due to a combination of inspirational leadership, greater freedoms and the pupil premium. How should we share this best practice so that all schools can benefit from today’s announcement?

David Laws: It was a pleasure to visit my hon. Friend’s constituency and he was quite right when he wrote to me to highlight the fantastic achievements of this school, which sits in a disadvantaged community and could easily be languishing and struggling, but actually sets incredibly high aspirations, showing that it is possible for schools to deliver. The Government have recently started to publish tables of similar schools, where we look at schools with a similar composition of pupils and look at their performance against other similar schools. That process should encourage schools across the country that are not performing well to look at other schools with a similar intake that are doing a lot
	better, perhaps visiting them, talking to teachers and finding out what works. This type of school-to-school improvement should be enhanced by the additional measure of information that we are publishing.

Chris Skidmore: I am sure that every Member will welcome the £400 increase in the pupil premium that will benefit primary schools in every single one of our constituencies. With this extra money, however, comes the need for added accountability, as has been mentioned. The Minister says that some schools have closed the gap entirely. When it comes to outcomes for the future, does he view it as the ultimate ambition for every school to have no gap whatever between the achievement of pupils entitled to free school meals and those who are not?

David Laws: Yes, because the best-performing schools across the country have shown that there is nothing inevitable about those gaps. Many schools have closed the gaps very considerably. The important thing is to make sure that the accountability system is an intelligent one, as it would be possible to close the gap but at a very low level of attainment, while some of the schools that we wrote to this year had high levels of overall attainment but large gaps, so they should have been doing better for their youngsters. Our attention was drawn to schools where there was no gap, but where the attainment of disadvantaged youngsters was not good enough. The accountability will be for the gap, but also for the progress made by disadvantaged youngsters and the level of attainment of disadvantaged youngsters in a school compared with the national average. There will be no hiding place for schools that might otherwise have a small gap but at a very modest level of attainment.

Ian Swales: I warmly welcome the increase in the pupil premium and thank the Minister for visiting Grangetown primary school in my constituency to see the difference that it is making. I ask for the reception assessment system to recognise that children can be almost one year apart in a given cohort. Will the data be used to help address the attainment gap at the younger end of the cohort that tends to persist through school?

David Laws: My hon. Friend makes an extremely important point, and I very much enjoyed my visit to Grangetown primary school in his constituency. The pupils left us with a rather large picture, 6 feet tall, which is currently hanging in my office. That school, as I recall, will be a massive beneficiary of the pupil premium investment, as something like 80% of its youngsters are entitled to the pupil premium. In a very challenging environment, the school has noticed that the additional money makes a massive difference to this school’s ability to deliver for its youngsters. My hon. Friend is right to say that, particularly in the context of an early baseline test, we need carefully to consider the impact of measuring youngsters’ achievement at a very young age and the impact of their age on their likely attainment. That important point should be properly considered.

Henry Smith: I very much welcome the enhancement of the pupil premium—a policy that has greatly benefited disadvantaged pupils in Crawley. I seek assurances on the assessment of pupils; will those with dyslexia receive the proper support?

David Laws: Yes, I can certainly give my hon. Friend that assurance.

Philip Hollobone: Pupils, parents and teachers across the Kettering constituency will warmly welcome the 44% increase in the pupil premium for primary school pupils. Will the Minister recount some of the best examples he has encountered of how the pupil premium is used? How can best practice be best disseminated across our schools?

David Laws: Some of the best practice relates to one-to-one tuition, and a whole series of interventions, about which we are publishing information, have come from research institutions, including the Education Endowment Foundation. What we want to ensure is that the evidence of what works does not come simply from politicians, but from educational experts. It should be available for schools to look at and should not be politicised in any way, as sometimes happened in the past. We are appointing a pupil premium champion in Dr John Dunford, who will go out to schools, draw attention to what works and ensure that best practice is spread right across the country.

Robin Walker: Primary schools in my constituency—which contains some of the most deprived wards in the country—will warmly welcome the focus on improvement versus absolute attainment and the increase in the pupil premium, which does an enormous amount of good in Worcester. However, will my right hon. Friend note an early-day motion tabled by my hon. Friend the Member for North Devon (Sir Nick Harvey) and signed by eight Liberal Democrat Members, which urges him to consider broadening the pupil premium rather than simply increasing it, and draws attention to the good that that could do in many parts of the country where the money may not be reaching all those for whom it is intended?

David Laws: I would be the first person to be pleased if we were able to fund a widening of access to the pupil premium. As my hon. Friend will know, we have already funded one considerable widening of entitlement by including pupils who had been receiving free school meals at any point during the previous six years. That has increased take-up of the premium to nearly a quarter of the cohort, which is a very considerable coverage. There are some other youngsters whom it would be useful to benefit, but that would depend on funding. In the meantime, I think that many of the schools to which my hon. Friend refers will be pleased to hear about the national funding formula for which he has campaigned so strongly, because it has the potential to give underfunded areas additional resources.

Jason McCartney: I try to visit a school in my constituency every Friday morning. This Friday I shall visit Helme school, and I know that the increase in the pupil premium to £1,300 per pupil will be very welcome there. However, will the Minister keep in mind special educational needs funding for smaller schools which find that an increasing number of their pupils have statements?

David Laws: I am delighted to hear that my hon. Friend regularly visits schools in his constituency. We can learn a great deal from that, and I hope that he receives an even warmer welcome than usual when he turns up this
	week to celebrate the additional pupil premium moneys. He is right to point out that the needs of some young people are such that they require additional funding beyond the pupil premium, and we will ensure that those special needs are properly met.

Damian Hinds: There is a well-known problem of learning loss over the summer, particularly among pupils who are between primary and secondary school. In the light of work done by the Education Endowment Foundation in that connection, does the Minister intend some of the extra resources to be spent on addressing the problem? Will he also say a brief word about the level of the service pupil premium, which is very important to a number of schools in East Hampshire?

David Laws: The importance of learning over the summer must not be underestimated. We are aware that in some parts of the country, particularly among the more disadvantaged communities, young people can slip back during the summer months, and we will continue to fund the summer schools that help to bridge the gap. We are also seeking to provide additional flexibility which would allow some schools that want to change their hours and holiday periods to do so. Some may wish to introduce shorter summer holidays to prevent pupils from falling back.
	We will certainly maintain and protect the service pupil premium, which has been valued in many parts of the country.

David Rutley: Does my hon. Friend believe that schools that have experienced a real surge in performance and transformation in attainment, such as Ash Grove school in Macclesfield, have an important role to play in helping other schools to bring about a similar transformation in their own attainment and aspiration levels by means of vehicles such as teaching alliances?

David Laws: I entirely agree. As I said earlier, we shall be publishing tables that will enable weak schools to learn from what is happening in stronger ones with similar intakes. I suggest that some outstanding institutions, such as the one to which my hon. Friend has referred, should also look at those tables, and should consider offering services and advice to schools in their areas that are not performing despite having very similar intakes. School-to-school improvement of that kind is often extremely effective.

Stephen Mosley: My right hon. Friend has rightly concentrated on the benefit of the pupil premium to disadvantaged children, but I was not sure from his earlier answer whether the dozens of service children who attend primary schools in my constituency, which is home to 1st Battalion The Royal Welsh, would receive the additional pupil premium or whether their pupil premium would remain at the same level.

David Laws: Pupils who are entitled to the pupil premium in and of its own right because, for example, a parent has been out of work for a period during the preceding six years will receive the full uplift. We are protecting entitlement to the service premium, but those who receive it will not be affected by the uplift.

Alcohol Strategy Consultation

Jeremy Browne: With permission, Mr Speaker, I shall make a statement on the Government’s response to the alcohol strategy consultation. Today we are publishing an analysis of responses to the consultation, along with a “next steps” document. Copies of both are available in the House Library.
	Drunken behaviour and alcohol-fuelled disorder can make towns and cities effective no-go areas for law-abiding people, particularly on Friday and Saturday nights. In nearly 50% of the incidents of violence that took place in 2011-12, the victim believed that the perpetrator was under the influence of alcohol. Excessive alcohol consumption costs the taxpayer huge amounts of money: alcohol-related crime and health harms are estimated to cost society about £21 billion every year. The Government therefore have a role in seeking to curb excessive drinking. We have already increased duty on alcopops, and have introduced a wide-ranging set of reforms to tackle binge drinking.
	We want fair and effective policies. We are not in the business of making laws that do not work. For that reason we have consulted widely, and have taken time to consider carefully the representations that we have received and all the relevant arguments. Our response identifies three kinds of action that are necessary. The first is targeted national action: the Government must deal with cheap alcohol, and the alcohol industry must strengthen its voluntary commitments to reduce alcohol-related harms.
	There has been much speculation about the Government’s plans in relation to minimum unit pricing. That policy will remain under consideration, but it will not be proceeded with at this time. We do not yet have enough concrete evidence that its introduction would be effective in reducing harms associated with problem drinking—this is a crucial point—without penalising people who drink responsibly. We will tackle the most egregious examples of cheap alcohol by banning sales of alcohol below the level of alcohol duty plus value-added tax. That will come into effect in England and Wales no later than the spring of 2014, and will stop the worst instances of deep discounting that result in alcohol being sold cheaply and harmfully. It will no longer be legal to sell a can of ordinary-strength lager for less than about 40p.
	We have decided not to ban multi-buy promotions. There is still a lack of convincing evidence that it would have a significant effect in reducing consumption. It would not be reasonable for us to introduce a ban, especially at a time when responsible families are trying hard to balance their household budgets. We will, however, make current mandatory licensing conditions more effective. We will enable tougher action to be taken to deal with irresponsible promotions in pubs and clubs, and will promote responsible drinking by raising customer awareness of the availability of small servings.
	Our decision not to proceed with the introduction of minimum unit pricing at this stage gives the alcohol industry an opportunity to demonstrate what more it can do to reduce the harms associated with problem drinking. Our challenge to the industry is to increase its efforts, building on what has already been achieved
	through the public health responsibility deal. That includes improving education to promote safer drinking, reducing the availability of the high-strength products that cause the most harm for problem drinkers, and responsible marketing and product placement.
	Secondly, we intend to facilitate local action. Targeted action by pubs and clubs themselves has proved hugely effective in curbing irresponsible drinking. Best Bar None, National Pubwatch, Purple Flag and community alcohol partnerships are all good examples of what can be achieved when industry works in partnership with local areas. We will build on this by identifying a number of high-harm local alcohol action areas and work with them to strengthen local partnerships, improve enforcement and increase good practice of what works locally, including how areas can make the most of available health data as part of local decision making.
	The third area is promoting growth, by freeing up responsible business and community groups from unnecessary red tape, while maintaining the integrity of the licensing system. We will make it quicker and easier for community groups and those wanting to sell small amounts of alcohol as part of a wider service to do so via the community and ancillary seller’s notice. We will increase the annual limit for the number of temporary event notices that can apply to a particular premises from 12 to 15, and free up businesses that provide late-night refreshment by removing the requirement to have a licence where there is no need for one. We will abolish the requirement to renew personal licences every 10 years. We also plan to consult on whether to abolish personal licences altogether.
	Taken together, the Government’s response to the alcohol strategy consultation represents a proportionate approach to tackling the worst excesses of alcohol consumption without penalising law-abiding people or responsible businesses. That is the right balance, and I commend this statement to the House.

Diana Johnson: May I start by thanking the Minister for giving me advance sight of his statement? He told us that the Government’s policy on alcohol is on track, and I wondered whether that was why I was sent his statement with the track changes still in place. After several months of speculation, we finally have confirmation to Parliament that the Government have performed a U-turn on their flagship policy, abandoning their intention to bring in minimum unit pricing and a ban on multi-buy deals. However, the Minister appears to have added in his track change—the “at this time”—which did not appear in the original Home Office statement.
	As we know, this was the Prime Minister’s personal policy, and it was a policy that the Home Secretary was so keen to introduce that she made minimum unit pricing the first major policy announcement in the House on a Friday for more than a decade. Now she sends her Liberal Democrat deputy to announce the U-turn. The Government may pretend this is not a U-turn, but the evidence is overwhelming. The consultation was never about whether or not to introduce minimum alcohol pricing; it was about what level that should be at, and the Government chose 45p to consult on.
	Here is what the Home Secretary said to this House last year:
	“We will... introduce a minimum unit price for alcohol…We will consult over the coming months on the level of the minimum unit price and will seek to introduce legislation as soon as possible.”—[Official Report, 23 March 2012; Vol. 542, c. 1071-1072.]
	The Prime minister said:
	“I know this won’t be universally popular. But the responsibility of being in government isn’t always about doing the popular thing. It’s about doing the right thing."
	Perhaps the Minister could explain why, if it was the right thing to do then, it is not the right thing to do now. Will he explain what representations Public Health England has made to him about this policy U-turn?
	Labour has been calling for a complete package of measures to tackle alcohol problems, including dealing with licensing, education in schools and giving public health a bigger role. Labour has said all along that several issues with minimum alcohol pricing had to be addressed before implementation. We argued that it could result in a windfall to supermarkets, and we were concerned that it may not be compatible with EU law and also that it was not the magic bullet the Government were claiming. But we also clearly offered to work with the Government to overcome those obstacles. They chose to ignore all those concerns and pressed ahead with their flagship policy on minimum unit pricing. So, of course, Lynton Crosby has now ordered a U-turn, to get the barnacles off the boat, and minimum pricing, along with most of the rest of the alcohol strategy and other important public health measures, has been scrapped. MPs have been left to read about it in the press over the weekend, while Cabinet members compete to improve their standing in the Tory party by briefing the press of their opposition.
	Instead, we now hear that the Government want to introduce a ban on the sale of alcohol “below cost”. That policy was first announced in a written ministerial statement in January 2011, so we have taken two and a half years to return to exactly where we started. The Minister claims that that proposal will ban cheap supermarket sales, but research by the Institute for Fiscal Studies has found that such a ban would raise the price of less than 1% of the alcohol sold in the off-trade, with most of that sold in discount stores, not supermarkets.
	The Government put minimum unit pricing at the heart of their approach and have now abandoned it, and many other policies are just not working. The late-night levy has not worked. Will the Minister confirm that no local authority has actually introduced a late-night levy and that the estimates on how much additional revenue it would raise for cash-strapped police forces will not materialise? Nothing has been done on education in our schools or on advertising. The alcohol strategy was meant to be about changing the culture of excessive consumption, but the level of binge drinking among 15 to 16-year-olds in the UK compares poorly with that in many other European countries. Mentor, the drug and alcohol charity, says that 60% of schools fail to teach drug and alcohol education more than once a year. And why is there no mention here of the role for health and wellbeing boards, set up by this Government, and why is public health not a licensing condition? We are also still waiting for the Government to make up their mind on full cost recovery for licence applications for local authorities, which are struggling with reducing budgets and having to take enforcement action.
	Given the measures in the statement on personal licences and temporary events, it seems to envisage that economic growth in this country will now be powered by the late-night drinking economy—is this the Bullingdon plan for growth? After attacking the Licensing Act 2003, it is curious that Ministers now want more late-night drinking. Do I detect traces of lobbying on the Minister’s breath? After a two-year Whitehall farce over the Government’s alcohol strategy we have ended up exactly where we started. On minimum alcohol pricing, the Prime Minister, like the Grand Old Duke of York, has marched us up the hill and back down again. This is a Government who could not organise an alcohol policy in a brewery.

Jeremy Browne: If the people sitting on the Opposition Front Bench suddenly find the conscience to get into apology mode, they might reflect on the fact that they introduced the liberalisation of the alcohol sales sector because they thought it would increase economic growth.
	Let me deal with some of the points raised by the hon. Lady. She said that I was trying to conceal something in the text, so let me read out what I said in my statement only a few minutes ago. On minimum unit pricing, I said, “This will remain a policy under consideration but will not be taken forward at this time.” I could not have been more explicit, but no doubt her textual analysis was exciting in some ways.
	On the consultation process, she gives the impression that there was an overwhelming response in favour of minimum unit pricing. However, we consulted openly and I can tell the House that 34% of respondents agreed that a 45p minimum unit price was a targeted and proportionate level and would significantly reduce harm, but 56%—substantially more—disagreed with that proposition. So we consulted on it and we heard what people had to say. We are, of course, mindful, in a way that some Opposition Members may not be, that introducing a minimum unit price has significant impacts on people with low incomes. It does not affect the Labour elite in north London, but it does affect some of the people who have traditionally voted for them.
	What is Labour’s position on the minimum unit price? I understand that Labour voted against a minimum unit price for alcohol in Scotland, but here in England and Wales the party does not seem to know whether it is for it or against it. I have announced what the Government’s position is, but it would help to hear from the Opposition. We are spending millions of pounds of taxpayers’ of Short money every year on giving them a chance to formulate some sensible policies, but so far they have not been able to come up with any at all.
	The hon. Lady talked about the Prime Minister’s position, so let me remind the House of what the Prime Minister said. He said that
	“we must deal with the problem of 20p or 25p cans of lager being available in supermarkets.”—[Official Report, 13 March 2013; Vol. 560, c. 307.]
	What I said in my statement is that it “will no longer be legal to sell a can of ordinary- strength lager for less than about 40p”, which is higher than the 20p or 25p mentioned by the Prime Minister.
	Let me make two final points in response to the hon. Lady. She says that nothing is being done voluntarily, but that simply is not true. The alcohol industry is
	making a substantial number of changes and taking products off the shelves that it agrees are irresponsible to sell.
	I have never met Lynton Crosby and I have no idea of his views on this subject. The only impact that he had on my life was when he tried to stop me from getting elected to Parliament in 2005. I do know, however, that I have set out to the House a strong liberal package that promotes fairer competition, the deregulation of burdens on business and personal freedom.

Tracey Crouch: Two people are admitted to hospital every minute as a result of alcohol, half of all crime is alcohol related and alcohol misuse costs England £22 billion a year. Canada has already implemented a form of minimum unit pricing for alcohol, and scientific studies show that minimum pricing has a clear and positive impact on reducing alcohol-related deaths. Does not that show that today’s decision to delay minimum pricing leaves our public health policy dangerously lagging behind and that it will ultimately cost lives?

Jeremy Browne: I do not accept my hon. Friend’s point for two reasons: first, it is perfectly possible—we are seeing evidence of this—to effect positive change regarding alcohol harm through local action and industry initiatives; and, secondly, people have to exercise some personal choice. I know that that is not the opinion of every hon. Member, but it is a legitimate opinion, because the Government cannot determine every choice that people make in their lives. If that was the approach, why stop at 45p and why not have a minimum price of £1.45? We must get the balance right, and we should not unfairly penalise people who behave responsibly.

Keith Vaz: The statement is a huge disappointment. On 23 March last year, the Home Secretary made a statement to the House in which she said that the Government will legislate—not “may” legislate—for a minimum price, which was in line with the recommendation made by successive Home Affairs Committees over seven or eight years. The hon. Member for Chatham and Aylesford (Tracey Crouch) cited a number of figures, and the £21 billion cost of alcohol-related crime that the Minister highlighted would fund the police service for two years. Will he tell the House how much time he will give the alcohol industry to drink at the last-chance saloon before he comes back with a firm proposal to initiate a minimum price for alcohol?

Jeremy Browne: Again, I do not accept the right hon. Gentleman’s core premise. In response to the consultation, 34% of people favoured a 45p minimum unit price, but 56% disagreed with that proposal. The most commonly expressed concern was that such a policy would have an unfair impact on responsible or moderate drinkers. It is reasonable to make the point that a person who can afford to drink a bottle of Chablis every evening would not be affected by the right hon. Gentleman’s approach, yet a person without the means to buy Chablis, and who therefore had to drink a cheaper bottle of white wine every evening, would be affected. There are several reasonable considerations that we must bear in mind about the social impact of introducing minimum unit pricing.

Edward Leigh: The Minister is exactly right. Those who would suffer due to the policy would be not the nanny-state elite drinking an expensive bottle of claret in their posh suburb of Leicester, but the poor. Why should we price the poor out of alcohol and why should we not trust them?

Jeremy Browne: There is a balance to be struck. We are introducing a floor involving VAT and duty to tackle the most extreme examples, while the industry is taking action by removing products such as White Lightning and Strongbow Black. I also note that Waitrose has removed its strong 8.2% cider brand. However, individuals also have to take responsibility for their choices and decisions, and we think that we are getting the balance right.

Paul Goggins: Given that almost half of all violent crime is carried out by offenders who are under the influence of alcohol, what action is the Minister taking with his colleagues in the Department of Health and the Ministry of Justice to ensure that there is a massive increase in the availability and provision of alcohol treatment for those in prison and on release?

Jeremy Browne: The right hon. Gentleman makes an important point. The main crime statistics will be released tomorrow, but I should say to hon. Members that there has been a steady fall in violent crime over the three years of this Government, as has been the case for virtually every category of crime, which I welcome. He is right, however, that we need to ensure that prisoners who have been exposed to drugs, alcohol and other harms are rehabilitated, so we aspire to achieve that even more effectively in the prison system.

James Paice: I congratulate my hon. Friend on setting out a sensible package of measures and resisting the call for the easy answer that we have heard from Labour Members. No one would deny that such things as binge drinking represent a real problem in many parts of the country, but is it not clear that that should be dealt with locally? Measures to empower licensing authorities to deal with problems where they arise represent the right way to address this, rather than adopting the simple blanket policy that some advocate.

Jeremy Browne: Unsurprisingly, I accept my right hon. Friend’s point. Problems due to excessive alcohol consumption, especially at evenings and weekends, are much more pronounced in some parts of the country than others, which is because some towns have shown more imagination and initiative on dealing with social problems. However, those towns with particular problems have powers through which they can raise their game, so I hope that they will use them effectively.

Kevin Barron: Sunday’s edition of The Observer reported that the Faculty of Public Health had withdrawn from the Government’s responsibility deal. It has followed many other organisations, including Alcohol Concern. The president of the faculty, Professor John Ashton, said that many of his members would
	“conclude that the government’s policies are putting the interests of industry ahead of improving people’s health.”
	He is right, is he not?

Jeremy Browne: Let me make a couple of brief points. When such consultations take place, respondents with a particular health perspective usually come from the angle of reducing health harms, but many contributors who want to retain the freedom to buy a wide range of alcohol without the state telling people how to behave will come from a different angle. Secondly—[Interruption.]

Mr Speaker: Order. I apologise for interrupting the Minister, but I say to the right hon. Member for Rother Valley (Mr Barron) that he is an illustrious figure in the House. He holds an extremely important position by chairing the Committee on Standards and the Committee of Privileges. I know that he feels extremely strongly about these matters, but he must not compete with other Members for the title of chunterer-in-chief.

Jeremy Browne: My brief second point is that the right hon. Gentleman is of sufficient means that if he feels that he does not want to buy low-cost alcohol, I can recommend he does not do so.

Philip Hollobone: May I welcome the scrapping of the vicinity test so that more people will be able to object to new off licences in their area? There was a case in Kettering of a person who wanted to object to a new off licence but was unable to do so because he lived just a few hundred yards away from the premises. By getting rid of the test, more people will be able to object.

Jeremy Browne: My hon. Friend makes an important point about something that has perhaps not received the attention it deserves. There are many changes through Government policy to give local people in such circumstances more power and a greater say in their community. I am also pleased that we are relaxing the law so that it is easier for the community groups in all our constituencies that put on events that people enjoy in village halls and community centres to provide small amounts of alcohol in convivial circumstances. I am sure that many hon. Members will appreciate that, too.

Hywel Williams: There is a widespread view in Wales that we should introduce minimum unit pricing immediately, irrespective of what happens in England. Has the Minister discussed the matter with the Welsh Government and will he enlighten the House of his views on that, if he can think of any?

Jeremy Browne: The consultation was held across England and Wales. We received about 1,500 responses and, as I said, the majority of people disagreed with a 45p minimum unit price, while about 75% of people—three quarters—expressed concern that the policy would affect people other than harmful or hazardous drinkers. Such a concern has been expressed universally.

Julian Huppert: My hon. Friend is right to highlight the fact that 56% of respondents disagreed with a minimum unit price of 45p, but does he know how many thought it should be zero and how many thought it should be higher, for example 50p? What extra concrete evidence do the Government want before a decision can be made on this policy?

Jeremy Browne: My hon. Friend makes a typically astute point. People were asked whether they agreed with a minimum unit price of 45p. The majority said that they did not and only about a third said that they did, but we do not know whether the majority disagreed because they thought it should be twice as high or half as high; they just disagreed with the figure they were given. I think that it is important to look at the evidence from the legal developments in Scotland, if it is forthcoming in time, and from Canada to see how the policy works in practice. There are some other points that are worth bearing in mind, which I have tried to touch on this afternoon, about getting the balance right between how many harms a minimum unit price would prevent and the restrictions on people’s ability to live their lives freely and make individual choices. That is the balance we have tried to strike in today’s statement.

Kelvin Hopkins: Thousands of babies are born damaged by alcohol every year, many with permanent genetic damage. Will the Government give further serious consideration to introducing legislation making it compulsory for all drinks containers to have a written health warning aimed at women of child-bearing age, combined with a pregnant mother symbol?

Jeremy Browne: The hon. Gentleman makes a serious point about the terrible foetal damage that excessive alcohol consumption can cause during pregnancy, although I think that it would be better directed at Health Ministers, rather than Home Office Ministers. I know that some warnings exist to alert expectant mothers to the risks, but no doubt the Minister for Public Health, my hon. Friend the Member for Broxtowe (Anna Soubry), will take his word seriously and see what more can be done.

Geoffrey Clifton-Brown: Given that the Government’s own figures show a 16% reduction in alcohol consumption since 2004 and the Office for Budget Responsibility forecasts further drops over the next five years, should not the Government now be focusing on evidence-based solutions, for example proper enforcement and better education, and industry-led solutions such as community alcohol partnerships, which have led to a reduction in under-age drinking in tough areas such as Barnsley, where it is down by 30%, and Durham, where it is down by 37%?

Jeremy Browne: My hon. Friend makes a good point. Much of the criticism being directed at me is based on the premise that alcohol consumption and violent crime are going up, but actually both are going down. The one note of caution I would mention to him is that that is overall alcohol consumption across the population. The Government do not deny that there are problems with people drinking excessively or inappropriately. The question is how we deal with those problems. We have suggested many practical measures as a result of the consultation, which we believe will be helpful in that regard.

Andrew Miller: The Minister talks about improving education to promote safer drinking, something that everyone will welcome. Which of the Science and Technology Committee’s recommendations on that has he taken into account? Has he taken into account our evidence-based recommendation that there ought to be at least two alcohol-free days in the safety guidance?

Jeremy Browne: Again, safe levels of alcohol consumption are more a matter for the Department of Health than the Home Office. With regard to licensing regulations, we have brought in quite a lot of restrictions. For example, it will no longer be possible to find the kinds of offers where a flat-rate fee is paid to enter a bar and one can then get unlimited free drinks, or where women are served free drinks but men are not. Such promotions, which we believe were irresponsible and encouraged irresponsible and excessive drinking, represent exactly the type of approach that we have been able to curtail using the lighter touch and more localised approach that I have recommended to Members this afternoon.

Andrew Griffiths: Although I welcome much of the Minister’s statement, does he not accept that the community pub is not the problem, but the solution to problem drinking? Does he not accept that drink bought in supermarkets at cheap prices is the problem, which the statement will do nothing to address? Does he honestly think that this policy will put prices up on the supermarket shelf?

Jeremy Browne: I do not wholly agree with my hon. Friend’s conclusions. I will make three very brief points. First, I think that the measure will make a difference—I am not exaggerating its scale—by introducing VAT plus duty as the bottom threshold. Secondly, many supermarkets are taking voluntary action following the types of representations I have been talking about. Asda, for example, has removed alcohol promotions from the reception areas of its supermarkets, which some people thought were inappropriate. Thirdly, the Government reduced beer duty in the most recent statement from the Chancellor, which I hope will help pubs in my hon. Friend’s constituency and across the country.

Nick Smith: We know that domestic violence is often fuelled by alcohol. How will the Government’s craven climbdown on unit pricing help to keep women and children safe in their homes?

Jeremy Browne: I think that that is an offensive question. If not having a minimum unit price for alcohol meant that a Government were tacitly accepting that it was legitimate to be violent in the home, why did the previous Labour Government not introduce one? I just do not accept that. People have to make reasonable and rational decisions, and that is what we have done. We have not climbed down; we have put forward a package of measures that, as I have said, strikes the right balance between protecting people and reducing harm and protecting personal responsibility.

John Pugh: The National Institute for Health and Care Excellence has been given a key role by our Government in assessing the efficacy of and evidence for public health measures. What did it say about unit pricing as part of the consultation?

Jeremy Browne: I do not have NICE’s specific representation to hand but, as I have said, the majority of respondents did not believe that we should go ahead with the 45p minimum unit price. As for the ban on multi-buy promotions, which we have rejected, the opinion was split about 50-50, but again the common concern—it was raised not just by institutions, but by ordinary
	people who want to live their lives without being micro-managed by the Government—was that moderate and sensible drinkers should not be unreasonably penalised, and I think they have a point.

Pete Wishart: If Carlsberg did statements, we just heard it from the Minister. It is unfortunate that this Government are not following the fine example of the Scottish Government in pursuing minimum unit pricing for alcohol and plain packaging for cigarettes. We will go ahead with that, because we have no Lynton Crosby and no right-wing Tories in Scotland. Will the Minister assure me that he will do all he can to ensure that the Scottish Government can get down to the business of tackling our health problems?

Jeremy Browne: We have devolution, so nobody is suggesting that the hon. Gentleman and his colleagues should not go ahead with that in Scotland, just so long as none of us sees him drinking anything down here during the week.

Sarah Wollaston: Is the Minister aware of the evidence from Sheffield that was published this morning and shows that the impact of having a threshold at duty plus VAT would be a decrease in consumption of one 400th of 1%? In other words, it will be meaningless. Meanwhile, doctors up and down the country, who are fed up with being lectured on how to reduce avoidable mortality in the NHS, see the one tool that they are asking for to reduce avoidable mortality through liver disease taken away.

Jeremy Browne: I do accept that it will have a more limited impact than introducing minimum unit pricing, but it will of course have some impact. Fundamentally, there are two different ways we can see politics; I say this to Opposition Front Benchers. We can either believe that the state has primacy and should impose its decisions on individuals, or say that individuals should be given some discretion about how they live their own lives. I think that individuals should be free to make some personal choices. [Interruption.] The hon. Member for Rhondda (Chris Bryant) and the others who are shouting at me throughout this statement clearly disagree. [Interruption.]

Mr Speaker: Order. The wider point that the Minister makes about constant shouting is of course true. I have urged colleagues to calm down, and I hope that they will. We are getting towards the break, and a degree of tolerance would be appropriate. I do not think that the Minister has been notably provocative; he has just been giving his answers.

Alex Cunningham: According to Balance, a fantastic organisation campaigning on alcohol issues, north-east England has the highest rate of under-18s in specialised alcohol treatment as well as the highest rate of alcohol-related hospital admissions in England. Why does not the Minister agree with every single local authority in the north-east and, it seems, every single health organisation in the country that a minimum unit price for alcohol is overdue and that the Government must not give in to the alcohol lobby in the way they have to the tobacco lobby?

Jeremy Browne: It is up to local authorities and local areas to take action. If local areas are not taking sufficient action on alcohol licensing or public health in the hon. Gentleman’s part of the country, he should urge them to do so. He refers to under-18s, but it is not legal for them to buy alcohol or tobacco.

Nick de Bois: I am pleased that the blanket approach has not been adopted because the target is heavy, not moderate, drinkers. Does the Minister agree that there is little advantage in lining the turnover of supermarkets when local initiatives can adapt to local needs? With a coalition of retailers, police commissioners, pubs and, above all, local authorities, we can have more impact locally, where the situation is of course different from area to area.

Jeremy Browne: My hon. Friend makes an important point and does so very well. I merely add that the position of Opposition Front Benchers who are shouting at me throughout this statement is, in effect, that they think that money should be taken from their poorest constituents and put towards the profits of supermarkets. That is an unusual position for Labour Members to take.

Jim Shannon: In the debate on the Loyal Address, I asked the Prime Minister a question in which I referred to a minimum price for alcohol. In his response he said:
	“On minimum pricing for alcohol, it is important that we take action to deal with deeply discounted alcohol”.—[Official Report, 8 May 2013; Vol. 563, c. 24.]
	The Prime Minister gave a commitment then, but unfortunately what we have today is selective unit price reduction. As alcoholism rises among young people with great vigour, as it has in the past, what steps will the Minister take, with Health Ministers, to initiate a strategy to address alcoholism among young people?

Jeremy Browne: We are working across Government to tackle the harms caused by alcohol. I have described many of those actions in my statement and in response to questions. The Prime Minister specifically said that we must deal with the problem of 20p or 25p cans of lager being available in supermarkets. In dealing with that today, we are taking the type of action that many Members will approve of.

Nigel Mills: The Minister is rightly tackling those who sell alcohol below the level of duty plus VAT. Will he update the House on what the
	Government will do to tackle those who are not paying duty plus VAT and selling alcohol illegally? That puts a lot of money into the pockets of organised crime, as he well knows.

Jeremy Browne: My hon. Friend makes an important point. This does impact on organised crime. Responsibility for Her Majesty’s Revenue and Customs lies with the Treasury, rather than the Home Office, and it is clearly keen to take ongoing measures to prevent public harms and to increase the revenue to Government. Duty plus VAT is a perfectly reasonable competition measure that the Government are introducing. It is an uncompetitive practice for supermarkets or others to sell alcohol below the level of tax that they have to pay on that alcohol. Anybody who has a free market perspective and does not want smaller retailers to be unfairly disadvantaged will see that as another reason to support this measure.

Justin Tomlinson: I speak as someone with a relative who continually battles with being an alcoholic. The vast majority of people who drink do so responsibly. Therefore, rather than hiking the price, why not place an appropriate levy on the industry to guarantee suitable help and support for those in need?

Jeremy Browne: I am sorry to hear about my hon. Friend’s relative; I think he has raised that personal case before in deliberations of this type. The industry is taking actions that I have sought to outline in some detail during our deliberations. The problem that confronts all Governments, or anybody who has to make a political decision, is how much they restrict the liberties of the majority to protect the minority from inflicting harm on themselves. There is a balance to be struck. The majority of people who responded to our consultation did not want the individual choices of the majority of responsible drinkers to be unfairly penalised because some people use alcohol irresponsibly.

ROYAL ASSENT

Mr Speaker: I have to notify the House, in accordance with the Royal Assent Act 1967, that the Queen has signified her Royal Assent to the following Acts:
	Supply and Appropriation (Main Estimates) Act 2013
	Finance Act 2013
	Marriage (Same Sex Couples) Act 2013

Points of Order

Andrew Lansley: On a point of order, Mr Speaker. I know that the House attaches importance to accuracy and establishing the accuracy of events as quickly as possible. In that context, the hon. Member for Caerphilly (Wayne David) raised at Prime Minister’s questions the case of Mr and Mrs Goodwin, which he had raised previously on 27 February. He asserted that the Prime Minister had not replied to a letter from, or on behalf of, Mr and Mrs Goodwin. May I inform the House that the hon. Member for Islwyn (Chris Evans) wrote to the Prime Minister on behalf of Mr and Mrs Goodwin, who are his constituents, on 4 March, enclosing a letter on their behalf from a sister written on 28 February? I have here a copy of the Prime Minister’s reply to that letter from the hon. Member for Islwyn dated 11 April this year.

Mr Speaker: That is not a matter for the Chair. The Leader of the House has offered helpful information that is now on the record, and we should leave it there. [Interruption.] There is no matter of order for the Chair. It is not a debate. Information has been volunteered and we will leave it at that.

Wayne David: It was incorrect information.

Mr Speaker: Well, I will give the hon. Gentleman a chance, and he had better not abuse it.

Wayne David: I would just like to make the point that I chose my words carefully in my question, which has been confirmed by Hansard. What I actually said was that the family had written to the Prime Minister and had not received a reply. That is correct—they have not received a reply. What the Leader of the House said about the response to my hon. Friend the Member for Islwyn (Chris Evans) was accurate. There was a response, but it made no reference to the case whatsoever. I stand by those comments.

Andrew Lansley: I am sorry, Mr Speaker, if I may—

Mr Speaker: Order. We are not going to have a long debate on this; we have a lot of business to get through. I call the Leader of the House, briefly.

Andrew Lansley: I have the Prime Minister’s letter of 11 April here. It is to the hon. Member for Islwyn, who wrote on behalf of his constituents, and I think we can assume that he passed it on to them. It relates specifically to Mr and Mrs Goodwin and replies to their circumstances.

Chris Evans: rose—

Mr Speaker: Order. We are not going to have a protracted exchange on this matter. I think that people are perfectly capable of making their own assessment—those in the House and outside it. The hon. Member for Caerphilly (Wayne David) made a point about a letter from individuals who did not receive a direct reply. The Leader of the House has made the point that there was a letter from an hon. Member to which the Prime
	Minister replied. We really do not have to go into the interstices of this, and it would be a disservice to the House to do so when we have pressing demands on our time, and, before we even reach those other matters, more points of order.
	[
	Interruption.
	]
	I think that I have given a very fair hearing to both points of view on this matter, and I am grateful to participants.

Owen Smith: On a point of order, Mr Speaker. You will be aware that the Chief Secretary to the Treasury has in the past hour published the Government’s initial response to the Silk commission on the devolution of taxation to Wales, but you may not be aware that it was leaked to the media at about 7 o’clock this morning and appeared on the BBC website. I know, Mr Speaker, that you take very seriously the role of Ministers to inform the House first, so could you please offer some guidance on the appropriateness of the response and, given that the former Secretary of State for Wales, the right hon. Member for Chesham and Amersham (Mrs Gillan), had committed to a full debate about these important matters on the Floor of the House, on whether it is appropriate that the Government should issue a scanty, one-page response on the penultimate day of this term?

Mr Speaker: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for that point of order, to which I respond as follows. First, if material has been leaked to the media in the way he suggests, that is entirely inappropriate and I deprecate it in the strongest possible terms. Important announcements should be made first to the House and it is a discourtesy to the House of Commons if people have pursued alternative methods.
	Secondly, as to the question of a prior commitment to there being a debate on the Floor of the House, that is not a matter for the Chair. I note the moral point that the hon. Gentleman is making in a sense. He may well seek to make it again in business questions tomorrow or, if for some reason he will not be available to do so, it will not be beyond his wit to ensure that the point is aired. It will be a question of airing it for a second time, given that he has done so for the first this afternoon.

Ian Lucas: On a point of order, Mr Speaker. I have given notice of this point of order, as you are aware, Mr Speaker, and I am glad that the Leader of the House is present, because it relates to the accuracy of statements given to the House by a Government Minister, the Under-Secretary of State for Work and Pensions, the hon. Member for Wirral West (Esther McVey), who has responsibility for disabled people. On 4 July, in answer to a question of mine about Wrexham Remploy, she said:
	“I am sure that the hon. Gentleman will be pleased to know that the Wrexham site is being sold with a view to making 10 to 20 jobs available for some of the ex-Remploy staff.”—[Official Report, 4 July 2013; Vol. 565, c. 1085.]
	I had no knowledge about that transaction, so I wrote to the hon. Lady, who wrote back:
	“I can confirm that the disposal of assets at the Wrexham site has the potential to create up to 20 job opportunities for disabled people including ex Remploy employees.”
	Those two statements are not the same. In the interests of accuracy, the hon. Lady’s statement on the Floor of the House contradicts the letter that she subsequently
	wrote to me. I have corresponded with the Minister to give her the opportunity to deal with this matter. I wrote to her yesterday telling her that if she did not respond to me I would raise it on the Floor of the House. She has not had the courtesy to reply. What steps can I take, Mr Speaker, to ensure that the record that my constituents—ex-Remploy workers—heard from the Government Dispatch Box is accurate?

Mr Speaker: I want to make two points. First, no request has been made to me by the Minister to correct the record. Secondly, the hon. Gentleman is in pursuit of salvation on this matter, but I think I might fairly make the point that he has found his own. He asks what mechanism is available to him to, in a sense, put the record straight, and the answer is that his ingenuity and indefatigability have enabled him to do precisely that through this point of order. It may well be that it would be more to his taste for the Minister to come to the House, but Ministers are responsible for their own words and decisions on whether to provide a correction. Some people might feel—I leave it to colleagues to judge—that the hon. Gentleman has now substantially achieved his objective of clarification. Perhaps we can leave it there for today.

BILLS PRESENTED
	 — 
	Transparency of Lobbying, Non-party Campaigning and Trade Union Administration Bill

Presentation and First Reading (Standing Order No. 57)
	Mr Andrew Lansley, supported by the Prime Minister, the Deputy Prime Minister, Mr Chancellor of the Exchequer, Secretary Vince Cable, Oliver Letwin, Miss Chloe Smith, Tom Brake, Jo Swinson and Joseph Johnson, presented a Bill to make provision for establishing and maintaining a register of persons carrying on the business of consultant lobbying and to require those persons to be entered in the register; to make provision about expenditure and donations for political purposes; to make provision about the Electoral Commission’s functions with respect to compliance with requirements imposed by or by virtue of enactments; to make provision relating to a trade union’s duty to maintain a register of members under section 24 of the Trade Union and Labour Relations (Consolidation) Act 1992; and for connected purposes.
	Bill read the First time; to be read a Second time tomorrow, and to be printed (Bill 97) with explanatory notes (Bill 97-EN).

Selective Licensing (Housing Standards) Bill

Presentation and First Reading (Standing Order No. 57)
	Graham Jones presented a Bill to allow local authorities to apply selective licensing conditions to improve housing standards.
	Bill read the First time; to be read a Second time on 28 February 2014, and to be printed (Bill 98).

Electoral Register (Access to Public Services)

Motion made for leave to bring in a Bill (Standing Order No. 23)

Siobhain McDonagh: I beg to move,
	That leave be given to bring in a Bill to introduce a requirement that electoral registration be a condition of access to public services; and for connected purposes.
	Registering to vote is about the nearest thing this country has to a social contract. It is recognition that we live in a democracy and abide by the outcome of that democracy. However, about 3.5 million people are not registered to vote. According to the Electoral Commission, these people are likely to be young, on low incomes, private sector tenants, ethnic minorities or people with disabilities. Their disengagement from democracy is a cause of great concern to me and many other Members. This Bill will ensure that they engage.
	In future, if someone wants housing benefits, a state pension, a national insurance number or even a driving licence, they will have to be on the electoral register. I do not think that that is too much to ask. After all, if people need to be on the electoral register to get a credit card, why not to get a driving licence?
	Linking public services to the register will increase participation and draw an explicit connection between democracy and the benefits we enjoy because we live in a democracy. If someone does not like living in a democracy, that is fine, but they should not expect all the good things that democracy offers in return.
	The electoral register is important and deserves to be comprehensive. It is the source of deciding who does jury service, so everyone should be on it. As far as I am concerned, refusal to be on the register shows contempt for juries and contempt for courts.What is more, the electoral register is an important tool in the fight against crime.
	The police routinely use it if they want to get in touch with a suspect or someone who is at risk. It is what banks and credit companies use to prevent fraud. Councils use it to check that people do not commit council tax or benefit fraud. A failure to sign the register is therefore a failure to co-operate with the agencies that fight crime. I do not have a problem with reasonable sanctions being taken against those who do not sign.
	Of course, the electoral register should be supported for nobler reasons. Charities use it to help raise funds for countless good causes. When it comes down to it, however, its central purpose—to give people a chance to vote—is more important than anything else. For that reason alone, I think we can all agree that the electoral register should be as comprehensive as possible.
	When I went to the USA last year to volunteer on the Obama for America campaign, some politicians engaged in what was called voter suppression, a deliberate attempt to ensure that poor people, ethnic minorities and the young could not vote. Surely none of us wants to live in that kind of country, where elections are won or lost because of who is denied a vote. My Bill is an antidote to voter suppression and it is needed, because the figure of 3.5 million is about to grow.
	I am assured that the Government are not committing voter suppression, but according to the Electoral Commission registration rates may soon fall from 90% to 65%. Mums and dads are about to be prevented from registering their children to vote. Individual registration sounds appealing, but when it was introduced in Northern Ireland, the register collapsed by 11%. The Electoral Commission says that this “adversely affected” disadvantaged groups—the people most likely to be disengaged.
	Thankfully, the Government’s plan to make registering to vote optional was shelved and the annual canvass was reinstated. However, there are serious flaws in the new system of registration, especially with regard to how difficult it will be for local authorities to sign people up.
	The challenge of getting people to register was belatedly recognised last month by the Minister for political and constitutional reform, the Parliamentary Secretary, Cabinet Office, the hon. Member for Norwich North (Miss Smith), when she offered £4.2 million for anyone who could come up with unspecified measures to reduce the number of people who fall through the gaps. However, as the Electoral Reform Society says,
	“when you’re talking about trying to prevent literally millions of people from falling off the register, £4.2m is not a great deal of money. You need a lot more than that to close the gap.”
	My council, Merton, is very good at promoting the electoral register. Before its annual canvass, only 65% of households have completed their form; afterwards, 97% have. That, however, is households. Like many of us, I knock on a lot of doors to talk to constituents, and there are homes where I see the same faces every year but miss the same individuals every time. Electoral registration officers will no longer be able to accept the word of the person they do see that the person they do not see still lives there, so those people will fall off the register, and because EROs will no longer be able to accept forms that are completed on the doorstep, but will have to rely on people to fill them in later, even good, proactive councils such as Merton will have to fall back on blind faith. We all know that many of those forms will never be filled in or returned.
	The Electoral Commission reckons that a third of eligible voters will simply not register, and the figure will be worse in areas of deprivation. What we will see, if we are not careful, is that the people on the edges of society will slowly disengage—we will institutionalise the underclass. The electoral register will no longer be comprehensive.
	The Government say that the new system will tackle fraud. Like everyone else, I am concerned about electoral malpractice, but we have to remember that, even according to the Government’s papers, fraudulent registration is
	“rare”. The Electoral Commission’s report on the 2013 elections lists a number of alleged malpractices:
	“potential campaign or nomination offences, including alleged false nominations, false statements about the character or conduct of candidates, and allegations that some election materials failed to include the correct imprint.”
	Fraudulent registration was not mentioned. Indeed, surveys show that 20 times more people are satisfied with how we register to vote than are dissatisfied. What is more, there is little incentive to register fraudulently because when councils look at the electoral register, it might lead to a higher council tax bill.
	Instead of reducing the electoral register to tackle a fraud that does not take place, we should enhance it to fight bigger crimes. The problem with our electoral register is not that too many people are on it, but that 3.5 million people are not. There is a lot that we could do about that. The Electoral Reform Society wants steps to be taken to make it easier to register, such as people being able to register on election day. It also wants people to be able to register
	“whenever people interact with government—for instance when they collect their pensions or benefits”.
	I would go even further. Registering should be stage one in the process of interacting with Government. At a stroke, that would reinstate millions of people who are missing from the register. The vast majority of the missing people are eligible for benefits, tax credits, pensions and so on, and many are already receiving them. Bringing those people on to the register would ensure that even more people engaged in the democratic process. The Bill is about living in a something-for-something society—public services in return for civic duty; the rewards of living in a democracy in return for signing up to democracy. Registering to vote is about engagement. It is a recognition that a person is not on the margins, but a full participant in society. It is our social contract.
	Strengthening the register would tackle fraud and reduce social exclusion, but more than that, it would ensure more people had a chance to vote. Those of us who believe in democracy should all agree that that would be no bad thing. I commend the Bill to the House.
	Question put and agreed to.
	Ordered,
	That Siobhain McDonagh, Ian Austin, Hazel Blears, Mr Russell Brown, Rosie Cooper, Nic Dakin, Mike Gapes, Mr Andrew Love, John Mann and Mr John Spellar present the Bill.
	Siobhain McDonagh accordingly presented the Bill.
	Bill read the First time; to be read a Second time on Friday 24 January 2014, and to be printed (Bill 95).

Opposition Day
	 — 
	[5th Allotted Day]
	 — 
	Paid Directorships and Consultancies (MPs)

Jon Trickett: I beg to move,
	That this House believes that, as part of a wider regulatory framework for second jobs, from the start of the next Parliament no hon. Members should be permitted to hold paid directorships or consultancies.
	It is good to see your cheerful face in the Chair, Mr Deputy Speaker, although it might not last for long.
	There is a compressed time scale this afternoon, so I give notice that I will not take many interventions. That is a shame because I was looking forward to them given that, until an hour ago, not a single Government Back Bencher had sought to speak in the debate. Somebody who is very mischievous said to me that that was because they were all off doing second jobs. I totally reject that suggestion. They are not making speeches because they are afraid of the argument.
	I hope that the debate does not descend into the usual finger-pointing exercise. I have no interest in denigrating the activities of any hon. Member. The House should be clear that Members who have second jobs at the moment have not broken any rule of the House. I am not suggesting that anybody is less diligent as a Member of Parliament because they have a second job.
	I will start the debate, by way of context, with a number: 895. That is the number of young people in my constituency who have no job, and yet here we are talking about MPs continuing to have several jobs after the general election. Some of those young people or their families might be watching our proceedings.
	The Commons has always allowed MPs to have other jobs, but all rules—and above all, this rule—ought to be reviewed from time to time. In reviewing the rules, it would be better to make progress with consensus across the parties. However, let me be equally clear that if there is no such consensus, the Labour party will ensure, by the time of the election, that there will be regulations governing our candidates once they are elected.
	There is a strong case for change. We have moved a long way since the time of Hugh Dalton, who reputedly visited his constituency once a quarter.

Helen Jones: As much as that?

Jon Trickett: Yes, and it is said that when he arrived, it was such a special occasion that the station master put on his top hat and tails and rolled out a red carpet for the Chancellor of the Exchequer.

Michael Dugher: You get that every week.

Jon Trickett: Yes, I get the red carpet regularly, but only on the way back out.
	I will quote two Prime Ministers, neither of whom are from my party. I am not in the habit of quoting Prime Ministers from other parties, but these quotations are quite relevant. More than a century ago, Gladstone said that “an MP who does his duty to his constituents has very little time for anything else”. Of course, MPs were all men in those days. In 2009, the right hon. Member for Witney (Mr Cameron) said that it was
	“necessary to demonstrate 100 per cent focus on Parliament, politics”.
	We can all agree that being an MP is a profession that requires an enormous commitment of time and energy.

Charlie Elphicke: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

James Morris: rose—

Jon Trickett: I will not give way yet.
	Let us be honest: the demands on our time have increased dramatically since the time of Gladstone and, indeed, since 2009, when the current Prime Minister made the comments that I have just quoted. MPs are under more pressure than ever in their constituencies. Most of us spend more time than previous generations of MPs in the areas that we represent and our constituents rightly expect us to be there. I think that all Members on both sides of the House would agree that that is a positive development.
	In addition to the work that we do in our constituencies, the role of Back Benchers in the Commons is changing. As reforms to the Select Committees, the modernisation of the House and the improved and increasingly intense scrutiny of legislation roll out, there is added pressure on our working week. There is also the fact that we live in an internet age of mass e-mails and 24/7 media. All of that means that our work is increasing exponentially. In the mind of the public—

Several hon. Members: rose—

Jon Trickett: Hon. Members should listen to the argument. I am not making a case against any individual. Just listen to the argument and I will give way shortly. Let me make the case. In the mind of the public it is clear that there is an overwhelming mood, which amounts to an expectation, that we should be working full-time for our constituents.

Several hon. Members: rose—

Jon Trickett: The House needs to adapt its culture—

Lindsay Hoyle: Order. The hon. Gentleman has made it clear that he is not going to take interventions at the moment. [Hon. Members: “Shame.”] No, it is up to the hon. Gentleman. I will decide whether it is a shame or not. He said that he will give way shortly. What we also do not need is a Whip on the Opposition Front Bench trying to antagonise Government Members.

Jon Trickett: Thank you, Mr Deputy Speaker. I will give way in a moment or two.
	Apart from the pressure on our time, there is another issue: the deteriorating reputation of politics in the mind of the public. We all know, for whatever reason, that the public perception of our role as law-makers and public representatives has sunk in recent times to an all-time low, and we need to address that. No single reform on its own can restore the trust that we need to rebuild, but better regulation of second jobs would clearly help. Here is one reason why. [Interruption.] I will explain why if the Leader of the House can be patient for just one second. He has to hear the argument before he can rebut it. Here is a reason why that can help. The issue relates to the problem of perception—I use that word carefully—of potential conflict of interest. Our primary loyalty as right hon. and hon. Members is to promote the common good for our country and our constituents, rather than our personal, private interests.
	I am not suggesting for one moment that any right hon. or hon. Member is allowing the pursuit of private interest to interfere with their duty to the wider public interest, but I am suggesting that there is a widespread perception that that is the case. In politics, as we know, perception is just as important as reality.

Harriett Baldwin: rose—

Jon Trickett: I will give way to the hon. Lady, but in doing so let me ask her this question. After the next election, Labour MPs will have no remunerated directorships or consultancies. Will she say the same for her party?

Harriett Baldwin: As the hon. Gentleman can see, I do not have any remunerated outside interests currently, but I did have one that carried forward after the election. He seems to making the case for separating the Executive completely from Parliament. Is he saying that none of those on the Opposition Front Bench would be prepared to be Ministers after the next election?

Jon Trickett: Let me say first that I note that the hon. Lady did not refer to the primary point, which is whether Government Members support reform. As regards the question of whether Ministers are somehow operating a private interest, that is a preposterous argument. Ministers work for the Crown on behalf of the public, because we live in a democratic society. For anybody to suggest that Ministers or a Prime Minister are somehow working for their private interests is a preposterous argument. I hope that when she reflects, she understands that that is the case.
	If we stop to reflect for an instant, it is easy to understand how the perception I was describing might develop. The House will know that anyone who becomes a director of a company board, or consultant to a company, has a fiduciary duty—a legally defined concept—to that company. [Interruption.]

Lindsay Hoyle: Order. We have already had the Opposition Whips intervening. I do not need the Government Whips leading the march of opposition.

Jon Trickett: Fiduciary duty requires the person who sits on a board, or who is a consultant to a company, to act in the best financial interests of that company. MPs
	swear an oath of loyalty to the country and to their constituents. Let me illustrate the problem as I see it. Were an MP to find themselves on the board of, or be a consultant to, a tobacco company—to take an example at random—they would be bound by a fiduciary duty to pursue the financial interests of that tobacco company. Imagine proposed legislation to improve public health, which would be damaging to the interests of the tobacco industry, being introduced in the House of Commons. The perception of a conflict of interest would arise in the public’s mind. An explanation would have to be sought on the way an MP chose to vote, particularly if the remuneration received—as is the case for some hon. Members—is two or three times greater than the remuneration they receive as an MP. The public’s perception would lead to only one conclusion.
	It is in order to tackle this problem that my right hon. Friend the Member for Doncaster North (Edward Miliband) has taken decisive action. From 2015, all Labour MPs will be banned from having directorships or consultancies for third-party commercial interests. I hope that other party leaders will see the sense of what we are proposing and move in the same direction.

Charlie Elphicke: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

Jon Trickett: I will on that point. I invite the hon. Gentleman to set out what he would say to the hundreds of young people under the age of 24 in his constituency of Dover who have no job, when he defends the right of MPs to have several jobs.

Charlie Elphicke: I would say to them that I do not have outside paid jobs. I am a Member of Parliament. My only job is as a Member of Parliament. Why did the hon. Gentleman, in 2009, vote against a ban on outside interests? Why is he doing a U-turn?

Jon Trickett: The House will have noticed that the hon. Gentleman has not said that he will vote with the Opposition to regulate second jobs. He acknowledges that there are hundreds of young people without a single job, and he has failed to address the central moral question. I would like all-party agreement on the Opposition’s proposal, but it looks like Government Members will not respond to it.
	There are those who will make the valid argument that Members of Parliament need to remain connected to the world beyond Westminster. The problem is to my mind best resolved by having a set of MPs who represent far more diverse backgrounds than we have at the moment. For example, about 60 MPs went to 13 fee-paying schools.

Helen Jones: Does my hon. Friend agree that part of the problem with second jobs and the connection with the outside world is that we seldom see Members taking low-paid jobs? They usually take very highly paid jobs. If they spent their time in their constituencies talking to their constituents, instead of working for firms in the City, they would know more about the real world.

Jon Trickett: My hon. Friend makes a powerful point. If we believe that we need to connect, then the choice of jobs that some MPs take is intriguing. I will come on to that point in a moment or two, because I have some
	thoughts on it. Having a more diverse set of MPs would be a better way of connecting the Commons to the world than simply saying that we should all take second, third, fourth or even fifth jobs.
	I have spoken to Labour MPs who were involved in business activities before being elected and who remain closely interested in the corporate world in which they worked, but who, shortly after being elected, voluntarily ceased to take remuneration because they believed that being an MP was a full-time commitment. I have also spoken to many Labour candidates for the next election—a new generation of Labour MPs, I hope—and I have not yet met one who believes that being an MP should be anything other than a full-time commitment. As my hon. Friend the Member for Warrington North (Helen Jones) said, when hon. Members say that having a second job somehow connects them to the outside world, what they generally mean—I am not talking about everyone—is a top, well-paid job. Not a single MP has recorded in the Register of Members’ Financial Interests a second job as a manual worker, a hospital porter, a cleaner or a call centre worker.
	Today’s motion deals with remunerated directorships and consultancies. Beyond those activities, the motion talks about regulating other sources of income. My right hon. Friend the Member for Doncaster North has announced that we are considering a cap on other forms of outside income, such as earnings from journalism or media appearances, that would apply to all parties. An hon. Member might belong to a profession—normally we talk about lawyers, doctors or perhaps dentists—and need to retain their professional qualifications, but I remind the House that a gas fitter also needs to do so many hours a year to retain his CORGI certificate and an electrician needs to keep in touch with the regulations of the Institute of Electrical and Electronics Engineers. Nothing we are proposing would prevent such a thing.

Paul Beresford: I am interested in the hon. Gentleman’s exception. I ought to be a gas fitter; I would be better off financially than I am in my current profession. He seems fixated on the paid part. Many Members have jobs on boards and organisations that are unpaid but which occupy the same amount of time and effort as those that are paid. Is his problem with the paid part?

Jon Trickett: I think the hon. Gentleman has been persuaded by my argument and might decide to join us in the Division Lobby. I hope others do, too, because, on this question of fiduciary duty, if an MP is remunerated, sometimes very substantially, it will create the perception that they might be tempted to calculate the impact of a particular proposal on that income before deciding how to vote. I do not suggest that any MP has ever done such a thing, but in the public mind, that is a widespread view. If we cannot agree this afternoon, Government Members should at least reflect on that.
	MPs’ other activities, including remunerated activities, can be taken into account in any new rules we might agree. For the vast majority of MPs, our proposals should be very simple and make no real changes to how they go about their work. Without robust regulation, however, the perception will continue that politics works for a tiny closed circle of people at the top of our
	society, but not for the millions of hard-working people who play by the rules yet find it increasingly hard to get by, and that brings me to the kernel of my argument. Millions of people play by the rules, but feel that they are getting a really rough deal, while also believing that there is a different set of rules for others, particularly those at the top. We politicians must take account of that public mood. It is time we stepped up to the mark. Precisely because it is we who set the rules, the rules have to apply to us above all.

David Morris: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

Jon Trickett: No, I have almost finished and others want to speak.
	Every single one of us feels great pride whenever we enter or leave the Chamber, and we all believe that if politics works properly, we can make our world a better place.

Andrew Lansley: The hon. Gentleman seems to be arguing that there is something requiring a remedy, but he keeps telling the House that the problem has not occurred. Does he know of any circumstances in which the problem he purports to be trying to solve has actually arisen?

Jon Trickett: As I have said many times, the problem is the public perception that when an MP is earning several hundred thousands of pounds a year from a third-party commercial operation, they will take that into account when making a decision. I do not allege that any MP has so behaved, but the public believe—[Interruption.] Government Members can protest, but they will know, assuming they knock on doors at election time—perhaps they do not—what people say about us.
	Working as an MP is the highest honour a democracy can bestow on us, so there should be no doubt in the public’s mind that we are placing every ounce of our intelligence, energy and loyalty at the service of the common good, not being diverted into defending our own private personal interests. For that reason, I hope the House can have a sensible debate, not a finger-pointing one, and even at this late stage support the motion.

Andrew Lansley: On behalf of the Government, I ask the House to reject the motion.
	I am interested in the contrast, which could not be more obvious, between this Opposition debate and the Bill we have just published. On the one hand, the Bill, the aim of which is to tackle a real issue, focuses on a specific potential problem concerning the transparency of third-party lobbying and third-party influences on the political system. By contrast, the hon. Member for Hemsworth (Jon Trickett) has presented a flawed motion to which the House should object regardless of whether Members agree with the principle he has tried to enunciate. It also turns out, however, to be nothing other than an effort to fling mud. He says he is not trying to impugn anybody’s motives, that nobody has done anything wrong, that everything is absolutely fine and that the House has behaved wonderfully, but then he says that the House should be constrained. It makes no sense.
	It was interesting that the hon. Gentleman did not tell the House the reason for the motion. It is chaff. As the Leader of the Opposition knows, what matters is the perception that the Labour party is in the pay of the trade unions, which control its policies, candidacies and leadership, which it bought; so in order to divert attention from that, which goes to the heart of this issue, the Labour party throws up this chaff.

Graham Stuart: Where they are aware of it, my constituents are concerned not about the perception, but about the reality: that the current Leader of the Opposition was not put there by a one man, one vote process and that Labour MPs were outvoted by the trade unions.

Andrew Lansley: My hon. Friend is right. Not only Labour MPs, but the Labour party membership, were outvoted by the trade unions, and nothing that the Leader of the Opposition is saying will change that. As far as I am aware, one third of the electoral college for the leadership of the Labour party will continue to be trade-union controlled, so if they can get a sufficiently large majority, they can control the leadership of the Labour party.
	The speech of the hon. Member for Hemsworth made no sense. I tried to listen to it and hear the argument, but if he wants to intervene and explain, even at this stage, I would be glad of that.
	The motion is about regulating the ways that Members of the House work. As Leader of the House—that is one reason why I am responding to this debate—it is my view that proposals adopted by the House to regulate how Members behave should be the product of consultation across the House, and considered on the basis of proper scrutiny by relevant bodies, either in the House or externally. In this case, the Labour party has put forward a proposal without any such basis or advice to the House; procedurally it has gone about it the wrong way.
	What is the real objective behind the motion? We should proceed in this House on the basis of trying to solve real problems. If the hon. Gentleman wants simply to talk about the issue, and the Labour party wants to get rid of the perception that those who are paid in this House are controlled by their paymasters, I have a simple proposition for the hon. Gentleman, which involves not taking money from the trade unions. That is not just a perception; the reality is that Labour’s interests are controlled by the trade unions. What is the hon. Gentleman trying to solve?

Lindsay Hoyle: Order. I understand that the right hon. Gentleman is trying to reach a conclusion and bring the debate together, but I do not think he wants to be dependent on the policies and funding of the Labour party. This debate is about remuneration and second jobs in this House. I am sure the Leader of the House is desperate to get to that point.

Andrew Lansley: I am trying to get to the argument, as I understood it, of the hon. Member for Hemsworth, and his point about the public perception that where Members of the House are in receipt of money from outside organisations, they are in the control of those organisations. I do not think that is true and I want to know what the motion is trying to achieve. It does not ensure that Members spend any given amount of time working
	with their constituents. A paid directorship or consultancy for one or two hours a week would be ruled out by this motion, but if a Member was engaged in travelling the world, for example, to undertake speaking engagements on behalf of some other organisation, which took them away for weeks—
	[
	Interruption.
	]
	Apparently in the view of Opposition Members that is absolutely fine and would not interfere with their ability to look after their constituents at all.
	The motion does not stop Members from having second jobs; it simply tries to stop them having certain kinds of second jobs, which is rather bizarre. It imposes no limit on the amount of money Members can earn outside politics; it simply wants to stop them earning money in particular ways.

Charlie Elphicke: My right hon. Friend has set out how what he considers to be the conflict issue has not been made into a real issue by the Opposition; it is just a hypothetical issue. There is also the issue of time. What is his view about the remarks made by the right hon. Member for Blackburn (Mr Straw)? He said:
	“I devote around 60-70 hours to my duties as an MP, both national and constituency-related…After allowing for sleep, and family/social activities, there are another 30-40 hours available for my other work.”

Andrew Lansley: My view is that as a result of the reforms, Members are accountable through the transparent registration of interests, which includes the amount of time they spend on those interests. They are accountable to their constituents through the register in a transparent way, and their constituents will judge them. The implication of what the hon. Member for Hemsworth was saying is that none of that has caused any problem and is all fine.
	David Miliband was a director of Sunderland football club and engaged in other consultancies, and the right hon. Member for Edinburgh South West (Mr Darling) may also be engaged in activities. The right hon. Member for Blackburn (Mr Straw) is a consultant to a company, which apparently is absolutely fine, as is the right hon. Member for Sheffield, Brightside and Hillsborough (Mr Blunkett) and the right hon. Member for Greenwich and Woolwich (Mr Raynsford), who is in his place. I refer to those right hon. Members because apparently is it fine for them to do those things and it does not impinge on their constituents or responsibilities, yet the hon. Member for Hemsworth wants to stop them from doing that. How absurd is that?

Ian Lucas: Will the Leader of the House confirm that he notified each of those Members that he planned to refer to them in the debate?

Andrew Lansley: Yes, I have done that.
	In our parliamentary democracy it is well established and accepted that many MPs have responsibilities beyond those of individual Back Benchers representing their constituents. There is nothing unusual about that. We do it as Ministers, as Chairs of Committees, and even in the distinguished role of Deputy Speaker of the House. Such responsibilities do not in any sense constrain Members of the House in being effective advocates and representatives of behalf of their constituents. I have not heard a serious suggestion that MPs should be barred from taking on responsibilities that go wider
	than their role as a constituency MP. The motion does not preclude Members from maintaining second jobs or paid outside interests; it merely sets out to impose a ban on a very specific type of employment.

Paul Flynn: Does the right hon. Gentleman recognise the powerful point made by my hon. Friend the Member for Hemsworth (Jon Trickett) that our main task is to restore the standing of politicians in the country? Most people in the country regard our wage as very handsome, and they expect people to do a full-time job if they are getting a full-time wage. It cannot be done the other way round if people are part-timing.

Andrew Lansley: My view, and I think that of the hon. Member for Hemsworth and Members across the House, is that it is perfectly possible in addition to one’s responsibilities to one’s constituents, and to the House, to undertake additional activities. We do that as Ministers, as Chairs of Committees, and in our constituencies in all sorts of ways. We do it in charitable work and, as has been said, when engaged in authorship and advisory positions, looking after charities and in all-party groups. If one looks at the Register of Members’ Financial Interests, one sees that people the length and breadth of this House are engaged in a wide variety of additional activities. It was held to be in the interests of the House that that wide range of activities should not be unduly constrained, but that Members should be completely transparent about their activities and interests, whether they are or are not remunerated, and how much time they take.
	This issue was previously considered by an independent expert body—the Committee on Standards in Public Life. Opposition Front Benchers may like to recall that that Committee argued that those who wished to be full-time Members should be free to do so, but that it considered it
	“desirable for the House of Commons to contain Members with a wide variety of continuing outside interests. If that were not so, Parliament would be less well-informed and effective than it is now, and might well be more dependent on lobbyists.”
	The Opposition’s proposal could lead to the very thing that on this very day we are trying better to control.

Andrew Jones: The motion mentions two types of corporate structures, but the hon. Member for Hemsworth was talking about payment as a principle. That ignores partnerships or self-employment. The motion is flawed. I know the hon. Gentleman was introducing it as best he could, but does that not show the lack of understanding of corporate structures and business overall among Labour Members?

Andrew Lansley: Yes, I fear Labour also misunderstands the nature of the relationship of a director to a company, and, where a director is a Member of Parliament, the relationship between those two responsibilities. Someone may act as a director and have a responsibility to the company as a whole in certain areas—I freely admit that for one year in the more than 16 years I have been in this House, I was a director of a company while also a Member of Parliament. I entered into an explicit contract that I would not undertake any activities for
	that company that drew on my interests and responsibilities as an MP—
	[
	Interruption.
	]
	No, we did not publish the contract, but I entered into a contract that made it clear that where there was any conflict of interest, the company would expect me to declare it and remove myself from any activity with the company concerned. I was very clear about that, so the question of a conflict of interest between my responsibilities as a Member of Parliament and to the company would not arise.

Helen Goodman: The right hon. Gentleman has described beautifully how the contract he drew up with the company protected the interest of the company, but not how it protected the interests of this House or of his constituents. Even the right hon. Gentleman must know that he who pays the piper calls the tune. That is the point.

Andrew Lansley: On the contrary, I was explaining to the House how it is perfectly straightforward not to prejudice one’s responsibilities as a Member of Parliament. Members in this House are very clear about that and that is why such matters are published in the Register of Members’ Financial Interests. The fact that the hon. Lady has stood up and said that he who pays the piper calls the tune will be an entertaining thought for us to take forward and I look forward to my hon. Friends making that very clear.
	The hon. Member for Hemsworth knows that I have written to the Leader of the Opposition about the Transparency of Lobbying, Non-party Campaigning and Trade Union Administration Bill, published today, to say that if he and his colleagues wish to follow through on the principle initiated by the Leader of the Opposition that members of trade unions should be able to exercise a deliberate choice about their participation in a political fund, the Bill is available. I invite the hon. Gentleman to come forward and say whether or not he will do that. If he does not, we will know that it was all rhetoric with no follow-through.
	The conclusion of the Committee on Standards in Public Life was that Members of Parliament should remain free to have paid employment unrelated to their role as MPs. That was widely accepted, and I have seen no evidence or argument that questions the validity of the conclusion and the hon. Gentleman mentioned no individual case that prejudiced that conclusion. We have clear rules on lobbying and the registration of interests that were put before the House by the previous Labour Government and agreed in April 2009. As we heard, the hon. Member for Hemsworth, who was on the Government Benches at that time, supported that and was against the exclusion of other earnings. The then Government did not go further down that path and they were right not to do so.
	We have mechanisms for investigating any alleged breach of the rules and proper procedures for taking action where necessary. The Chairman of the Standards Committee, the right hon. Member for Rother Valley (Mr Barron) is in his place and if he wished, he could take action—although I suspect he would not need to do so, as no case arises. I do not think we have any lack of rules that would enable us to act when any conflict of interest took place. We do not need new and arbitrary rules.

Graham Stuart: Does my right hon. Friend agree that the Leader of the Opposition shows through today’s motion that he does not really understand how business works? He said a year or two ago, if I remember correctly, that he would like more entrepreneurs on the Labour Benches. When we look across the House, we have to ask how many people on those Benches started a business and got it going. There is a small number, but not many. It is quite clear from the motion that they do not understand. I have been a publisher since the age of 25 and I am a director of the company I set up then; I do not think that that harms my ability to represent my constituents in this House.

Andrew Lansley: I am sure that my hon. Friend is right. I was rather disappointed because the implication of the motion seems to be that if someone is in business, they ought specifically to be excluded from being able to pursue those interests in this House. The hon. Member for Hemsworth was perfectly happy for people in all sorts of profession to continue—doctors, farmers, lawyers and, presumably, architects. There are all sorts of partnerships and a sole trader or partner would be able to continue to work in their interests, but a director of a company would apparently not be able to do so. I presume that he would exclude paid directors of companies that are limited by guarantee, which are often not-for-profit organisations. I fail to see why so many such organisations, which do good work, should be precluded from having any Member of Parliament participating in them.
	The motion refers to the
	“wider regulatory framework for second jobs”.
	I failed to hear in the hon. Gentleman’s opening speech what he meant by that, so perhaps we will hear some more about it from the hon. Member for Barnsley East (Michael Dugher) when he concludes the debate.
	There are practical issues that mean that the proposal is flawed. It refers to a director but not to an employee of a company, and it does not refer to partners—trustees have been mentioned. A range of circumstances have been ignored and left out, and the effort is to preclude directorships specifically. It refers to “consultancies”, although that is undefined, and apparently being an adviser would be okay. Or would every adviser be treated as a consultant? If we put the word “adviser” into the motion, instead of referring to consultants, it would no doubt extend widely among those on the Labour Benches, but apparently that is okay—[Interruption.] I will not go through every entry in the register, as I have already done that, but there are many circumstances in which Members are advisers to organisations. Apparently, I do not understand whether they are consultants or not.
	As I have said, many professions, including many that are very time consuming—there are Members in the Chamber who consume quite a bit of time in writing books and articles and taking part in broadcast activities, but that seems to be perfectly okay—are ignored.
	I cannot see from the motion who would police the new rules. Who would define who was a director for this purpose? Who would undertake the difficult task of deciding what was a consultancy? I cannot imagine the Parliamentary Commissioner for Standards would welcome the task of monitoring the provisions—we might hear whether she would. Do we need a new quango? Would
	Members rather the function be given to IPSA—
	[
	Interruption.
	]
	I think that was an ironic cheer from Opposition Members. IPSA considered the matter in its latest report and stated, perhaps with a moment’s regret, that it was not within its remit. It then made an ex cathedra statement about it anyway—

Ian Lucas: Ex cathedra?

Andrew Lansley: Well, IPSA is a bit cathedral-like, is it not? A bit papal, really.
	IPSA considered the issue and, although it decided it was not within its remit, said that
	“the proportion of MPs with significant outside earnings is small.”
	At least IPSA agrees with the hon. Member for Hemsworth that there is not a problem, but, like most people, it imagines that when there is no problem it is not necessary to find a solution.
	The solution—the key to which is in the Bill published today—is transparency. Members are free to divide their time between their different and varied responsibilities. They represent constituents, scrutinise legislation, hold the Government to account and pursue the interests of their party—all those things take up a lot of Members’ time—but they must judge how to balance and allocate their time. Individual Members will be accountable through the register for where their interests lie and to their constituents for how they undertake their responsibilities.

Kwasi Kwarteng: Should this not be an issue for the electorates and constituencies concerned? It seems to me to set a dangerous precedent to try to impose some sort of central authority.

Andrew Lansley: Yes, I agree with my hon. Friend. Transparency is key. If there is any adverse perception to which the hon. Member for Hemsworth is referring, we should make it clear that the register is absolutely transparent and that people can look to see that Members do not undertake activities that conflict with their responsibilities to their constituents and in this House.
	We can dismiss the issue of earnings, because clearly Opposition Members are very happy for people to earn a great deal of money if necessary, as long as they do not earn it in specific ways. We can dismiss the question of time, since no argument is being presented that Members are incapable of undertaking other activities and that they would not have sufficient time to look after their constituents. Clearly, they do and, if anything, all the evidence suggests that Members are devoting more time to their responsibilities in this House and using the advances in communications technology and elsewhere to provide improving services. Opportunities are increasing, added to by IPSA’s proposals for Members to have an annual report, to set out for our constituents how we do that.
	It seems to me that no issue arises on the motion. The issue before us is how to achieve the greatest transparency and our Bill, published today, is the only relevant action taking place. It meets the objective of being more transparent about third-party influences—whether that is about lobbying or non-party campaigning at election times or about the scrutiny and accountability of trade unions.
	There is an issue, of course, about “who pays the piper calls the tune”, as the hon. Member for Bishop Auckland (Helen Goodman) said. That is an issue in relation to the Labour party and the influence of the trade unions, and the Labour party really has to respond to that. I suggest to Labour Members that they cut the chaff and stop trying to divert from where the real issues lie, and instead respond to the offer we have made for there to be a change to the legislation that begins to tackle the real issue that the public care about, which is that he who pays for the Labour party calls its tune.
	The motion is flawed in practice and pointless in its content. Whether or not one has sympathy with some of the arguments presented by the hon. Member for Hemsworth, I urge Members to recognise that the motion should not be supported by the House and to reject it.

Several hon. Members: rose—

Dawn Primarolo: Order. There must be a five-minute limit on Back-Bench contributions in order to ensure everyone can participate in the debate and we have time for the wind-ups.

Nick Raynsford: May I, appropriately, at the start of this contribution refer to my interests as listed in the register? I should also at the outset make it clear that I have had second jobs throughout the time that I have served as a Member of Parliament. Before I was elected as MP for Greenwich in 1992, I ran a small business offering housing consultancy services—so the Conservative Member, the hon. Member for Beverley and Holderness (Mr Stuart), who believes Opposition Members do not have business experience is not correct—and that reflected my own career in housing over the previous 20 years. I sold that business when I was elected to the House, but remained as a consultant to the organisation that bought the business until I became a Minister in 1997. From 1997 to 2005 I served as a Minister in the Department that is now known as the Department for Communities and Local Government—it would take up too much of my five minutes to list its various names when I was a Minister there. That was the hardest-working second job I had by a long way during my time here.
	After I left Government I accepted invitations to undertake work—some paid, some without remuneration— from organisations operating in fields in which I had previous professional experience or relevant skills. All were referred to, and approved by, the Advisory Committee on Business Appointments, which considers applications from former Ministers proposing to take on outside interests. It is worth quoting the opening paragraph of the guidance issued by the Committee at the time:
	“It is in the public interest that former Ministers with experience in government should be able to move into business or into other areas of public life.”
	It went on to talk about the necessary safeguards to ensure propriety, but that statement of the public interest was very clear and the Leader of the House referred to it in his comments about the Committee on Standards in Public Life.
	I have never allowed my outside interests, which are all properly declared, to interfere with, or inhibit, my parliamentary and constituency work. They certainly demanded a lot less time than my responsibilities as a Front-Bench spokesman for my party in Opposition and as a Minister between 1997 and 2005.
	As I am standing down at the next election, my party’s proposals, as referred to in the motion and described by my hon. Friend the Member for Hemsworth (Jon Trickett), will not affect me personally, so I hope I can offer a reasonably impartial analysis of their likely impact. It is certainly right that we should be debating this issue as there is genuine public concern that MPs should act in the public interest, and should not abuse their position by undertaking inappropriate activity on behalf of lobbyists or organisations seeking improperly to secure an advantage. I stress the word “improperly” because it is also right that organisations, whether commercial or not, which want to influence Parliament should be able to speak freely with MPs and have relationships with supporters in this House. I myself, in the voluntary sector before I was elected in 1992, had frequent contacts with MPs and Ministers in order to pursue issues relating to the voluntary organisation I was involved with, which was promoting policies and practices to achieve better housing outcomes and more effective relief for the homeless.

Glyn Davies: I agree with every word the right hon. Gentleman says, and I congratulate him on his involvement in so many other activities which are a great help to his work in this Chamber. What advice would he give to somebody who owns a business that they cannot sell, however? I am a farmer, and the only way for me to remove myself from the business completely would be either to sell the farm completely or move out of it all together. What advice would he give people like me?

Nick Raynsford: The hon. Gentleman has raised a specific issue and I will refer later to one or two circumstances that seem to me to be not well covered by the terms set out in the motion. I hope he will bear with me until I get there.
	When I was in the voluntary sector, one of the observations often made by my colleagues working in the housing world was that MPs, as generalists, had only a limited knowledge and understanding of the often complex and technical rules that applied to their clients—members of the public—and the frequent refrain I heard was “If only they could spend time working with us, then they would better understand the issue.” I therefore want to emphasise at the outset the importance of not acting in ways that might inhibit or restrict proper links and relationships between MPs and the wider world.
	The motion states that, as part of a regulatory framework for MPs’ second jobs, following the next general election no MP should be permitted to hold “paid directorships or consultancies.” It is not clear to me what the logic of that is. What is the difference between a paid directorship or consultancy and a contract to write a book or an article, or a payment for practising as a lawyer or a doctor, or a fee for providing a piece of expert advice? Is it the payment that is the problem? If so, the motion is far too narrow as it would leave open
	all kinds of opportunities for MPs to receive payment for remunerated activities other than those described as directorships or consultancies. If the problem is not the payment but is instead the relationship implied by the directorship or consultancy, why should a paid directorship of an organisation with a remit that clearly involves public interest objectives, such as the construction of social and affordable housing, be banned whereas a remunerated relationship other than a directorship or consultancy with a profit-making organisation pursuing entirely private interests would appear to be acceptable?
	One of the arguments advanced by those who wish to curtail MPs’ outside interests is that the MP’s job is a full-time one and their constituents deserve their full-time attention. I wholly agree.

Charlie Elphicke: The right hon. Gentleman’s expertise in housing is well known. Does he find that he can bring that expertise to bear in the House?

Nick Raynsford: I thank the hon. Gentleman for his helpful intervention, and I was going to come to that point, although my time is very limited.
	I wholly agree that MPs should be working assiduously for their constituents and putting in the necessary time to fulfil all their constituency and parliamentary responsibilities. In my experience the vast majority of MPs do that; they work hard and conscientiously, putting in far longer hours than would be expected in most other jobs.
	Over my 20-plus years in this place, I have consistently worked very long hours, dealing with a huge volume of constituency correspondence, holding six advice surgeries every month, and sustaining a busy programme of visits and activities in the constituency. We all, I believe, try to do our best to represent our constituencies and constituents and are probably doing more such work today than at any time in Parliament’s history. My hon. Friend the Member for Hemsworth referred to Hugh Dalton in his introductory remarks. I am told that when Lord Palmerston was invited to become a Member by the landowner who controlled the constituency he was “elected” for, it was on the condition that he never, repeat never, appeared in the constituency.
	Things have moved on a lot since then, but if it were truly suspected that MPs were not adequately pulling their weight, we ought to have measures to restrict the demands of their parliamentary second jobs such as Front-Bench and ministerial responsibilities or chairmanships of Select Committees. That would be absolutely absurd, and I genuinely do not think that it is an issue.
	My final point is about the representativeness of this House. People have expressed real fears that we are increasingly becoming a professionalised House of Commons with fewer opportunities for people in mid-career to come into this House bringing expertise from outside. I fear this measure would accelerate that process.

Phillip Lee: It is a privilege to follow the right hon. Member for Greenwich and Woolwich (Mr Raynsford). Indeed, I would happily donate my time to allow him to continue for a further five minutes, because he outlined many reasons why both this motion and the thinking behind it are flawed.
	The shadow Front-Bench team is, I think, trying to address the concern among the wider public about politicians, their position and trust. As one of the 240-odd Members who entered the House in 2010, I recognise that the seat that I managed to secure was a victim of that affair. I recognise the need to ensure that the public trust politicians, but I wanted to share with the House my own experience.
	In the selection for the constituency of Bracknell there was an open meeting—a caucus. There were seven of us, most of whom had had jobs before and one of whom is now a Member here. During that selection process I pointed out to the meeting that I would continue working in a second job as a doctor. This was a meeting that everybody who was on the electoral register in Bracknell could attend. Approximately 50% of the people there were non-Conservative members. Despite that, I was selected in a very competitive field. My hon. Friend who is now the Member for Penrith and The Border (Rory Stewart) was second. I like to remind him of that on a regular basis. As an aside, I am rather pleased that he is here. He has written some fantastic books and I want him to continue writing books while in the Chamber.
	I went on to the election and I was interviewed during the election campaign. The only time I was mentioned on the BBC website, it was because I called for an increase in MPs’ wages. That is significant. I thought it was rather perverse that I was taking a £50,000 pay cut to come here to be an MP from being a GP. We should all reflect on that before making political points on either side of the House. I also said that I would continue working as a GP. I met more people on the doorsteps of Bracknell and the surrounding area who congratulated me on that fact than people who said, “No, you shouldn’t be doing that. I want a full-time Member of Parliament.”

David Morris: Does my hon. Friend agree that carrying on practising as a GP enhances his work in the House and keeps him in regular touch with his constituents?

Phillip Lee: I think it does and I will come to that.

Oliver Colvile: Can my hon. Friend help me? Is it the case that as a doctor, he has to practise a bit in order to keep his licence going?

Phillip Lee: Yes, it is true. With reference to the comments from the shadow Minister, I point out for the record that I applied to the Speaker’s office this morning at 10 o’clock to speak in the debate. On medicine and maintaining professional skills, yes, one has to practise but it is not actually prescribed, so there is a difficulty in determining how many hours I would have to practise as a GP. Indeed, I am currently going through revalidation.
	After I was elected, I appeared in that esteemed organ, Private Eye, under the “New Boys” column, which listed my income and suggested that this was wrong. I was challenged at a public meeting—I hold regular public meetings in my constituency—by somebody waving the article at me and telling me that I was a part-time Member of Parliament. I pointed out to him that like most Members in the House, I do upwards of
	50, 60 and sometimes 70 hours a week. It is rather different from any other job I have done in my life because I do not feel that I stop working. I am constantly thinking about this role and the challenges that we all face.
	I asked the man a series of questions. I asked whether he was a parent, to which he replied yes. I asked, “Do you think that is a full-time job?” and he said yes. I asked him a second question. I said, “In the unlikely event that I am asked to be a Minister, should I say yes or no?” He said, “You should say yes.” I said, “Do you think it is a full-time job being, say, the Defence Minister, the Foreign Secretary or the Prime Minister? Do you think those are full-time jobs?”—not that that is on the horizon. He said, “Of course they are full-time jobs.” I said, “So what you are saying is that being a Minister is a full-time job, being a father is a full-time job, and you are having a go at me for doing about four hours a week as a GP, when I am doing about 60 hours a week as an MP. I think your argument is flawed.”
	With reference to whether I should be paid for that or whether I should volunteer, I get the impression that I should be giving my time for free. I think that is a perverse argument. There are Members who want to do voluntary work in addition to their jobs and I congratulate them on that, but the idea that I should not be paid to be a doctor is, I believe, not widely held in my constituency or across the country. Most people would say that I should be paid to undertake that work.
	Moving on to the question about what I bring to the Chamber as a doctor, I shall give one example, which is very relevant today. The CQC issued a report today on the Heatherwood and Wexham Park Hospitals NHS Foundation Trust, a trust that rather bizarrely secured foundation trust status in 2007. The trust is financially unviable and has significant clinical problems, according to the report. I highlighted this at the Department of Health shortly after arrival. My continuing work at the time was in Slough. I was working as a GP and I knew there was a problem. I contacted Monitor, I contacted the CQC, I spoke on the telephone to that fantastic individual, Cynthia Bower, and pointed out to her that there was a problem. I am slightly surprised that it has taken three years for the CQC to conclude that there is a problem, but the fact that I was still working in the area gave me evidence and first-hand experience of what was going on, and my constituents recognise that.
	The other example that I can give the House is of the hospital that I would like to see built in the Thames valley. That is based on the experience of working throughout the constituency. In the register of interests, I have various entries because I do not work in just one practice. I work all over the place—whoever will take me—and from that experience I have a regional perspective on the health economy in the Thames Valley, a perspective that is almost unique, particularly if one adds to it the fact that I am also a Member of Parliament in the Thames valley. The two together make me a better Member of Parliament for the Bracknell constituency. So although I recognise what the shadow Front-Bench team is trying to do, this is the wrong way to go about it. I ask the Front-Bench team to reflect on that.

Chris Williamson: May I start by saying to the Leader of the House that it seems to me that, in his opening remarks, he was being deliberately obtuse when he said that he did not understand the motion. For clarity, let me read it to him. It seems very clear indeed. It states that
	“this House believes that, as part of a wider regulatory framework for second jobs, from the start of the next Parliament no hon. Members should be permitted to hold paid directorships or consultancies.”
	It could not be clearer. I do not understand the claim from the Leader of the House that the motion is flawed.

Graham Stuart: Can the hon. Gentleman tell us the definition of “consultancy” so that we can all refer to it?

Chris Williamson: Here we go again. I was going to go on to say that the Leader of the House accused my hon. Friend the Member for Hemsworth (Jon Trickett) of putting up chaff, and here we have yet more chaff from the hon. Member for Beverley and Holderness (Mr Stuart). There is a clear legal definition of a consultant and if he needs to check that out, I suggest he look up the dictionary definition. I am not going to waste the limited amount of time I have explaining it to him. He knows very well what a consultant is.
	As my hon. Friend the Member for Hemsworth pointed out, perception is key in this agenda. We know that Parliament and MPs are held in very low esteem by many of the electorate and it is our duty to try to repair the trust of the electorate. I say that because I have spoken to many constituents—people have also written to me—who have said, for example, that the top-down reorganisation of the national health service was done only because many senior Conservative MPs stood to benefit financially from the 49% privatisation. Surely none of us, on either side of the Chamber, can allow that sort of perception to persist among the wider electorate. People need to have trust in their Members of Parliament. The motion would go a long way towards re-establishing that trust with the electorate at large.
	The Leader of the House implied that agreeing the motion would impose some terrible, onerous obligation on Members, as though this idea had somehow dropped from space, from Mars or something. However, if we look around the world, it becomes clear that the restrictions imposed on fellow parliamentarians in other countries are much more stringent than the restrictions in the UK. Our friends in America have imposed strong, stringent restrictions on the elected representatives who serve in that country. This motion contains a reasonable and measured proposition that would put us on a par with many of our international colleagues.

Edward Leigh: I do not understand why, under the terms of the motion, the hon. Gentleman would be happy with me doing what I did a few years ago, when I spent five months doing a fraud trial as a barrister, but would apparently not be happy with me attending 12 board meetings a year, all properly declared? How can attending just 12 board meetings a year prevent me from doing my job in this place? I do not understand the terms of the motion.

Chris Williamson: I think the hon. Gentleman is being a little obtuse, because there is a way round that. The earnings from that work could perhaps be capped. That might be the way forward. As a Member of Parliament, I know that my time is taken up almost entirely with being an elected representative. How he finds time to go and represent clients in court is beyond me, but that is a matter for him. One way round that problem would be to put a cap on earnings.

Robert Flello: I am enjoying my hon. Friend’s speech. I seem to recall an hon. Member from the Government Benches who went on “I’m a Celebrity” and got into a lot of trouble because she absented herself from this House. How does that compare with five months on a fraud case?

Chris Williamson: My hon. Friend makes an apposite point. Indeed, one wonders what Conservative Members have to say about that, because that hon. Member had the Whip withdrawn from her for having the temerity to spend her time during the recess on “I’m a Celebrity…Get Me Out of Here!” It seems to me that Conservative Members are applying double standards.
	Our democracy is indeed in crisis. We have to do something about that. Politics is a noble thing. It is the way in which we introduce things such as the national health service, the welfare state, equal pay and the minimum wage. It is absolutely key that people have confidence in what we are doing.

Jim Cunningham: Does my hon. Friend agree that poking fun at the motion sends out the wrong message to the public—that we are not taking this issue seriously?

Chris Williamson: It sends completely the wrong signal.
	The obtuse way in which the Leader of the House approached the debate is extremely regrettable, particularly when our democracy is in crisis, as I have said. We have an obligation to restore the standing of politics in our country, because—as I was saying before my hon. Friend intervened on me—it is politics that can and does make a difference to people’s lives. I have talked about things such as the national health service, the minimum wage and many other wonderful, progressive leaps forward that were made as a direct consequence of the political process. If we undermine our politics and do nothing to restore faith in it, people will hold us in contempt and it will be so much more difficult to make the progressive changes that are desperately needed in our country to get young people back to work, tackle the crisis of low pay and deal with the problems of ill health and the ageing population. There are so many things that we need to address, and we need a strong political class to be able to deliver those changes. We can get that by restoring faith in our political process and, as a start, agreeing to this motion.

John Hemming: I would like to apologise to the House for the fact that I was doing a second job earlier. I had to pop off and sit on a statutory instrument Committee. I shall have another second job in a bit, which involves sitting on the Joint Committee on Statutory Instruments. The quorum is two Members of Parliament and I believe that I am needed, so I shall pop over there for two minutes later
	on. All sorts of conflicts exist in the demands on Members’ time, but, to pick up on the demand made by the hon. Member for Derby North (Chris Williamson), I do not believe that having a “political class” is the solution.
	I refer the House to my entry in the Register of Members’ Financial Interests. The motion is badly drafted, in that it would trap one of the businesses that I have created, but not the other. I shall talk a bit about my history. I first fought a general election in 1983, when I was the youngest Liberal candidate in the country. Later that year, I founded a business called John Hemming and Company. I fought the general election in 1987, and I was elected to Birmingham city council in 1990. I became the group leader and deputy leader of the council in 2004. During all that time, I have also chaired my business, which is now called JHC.
	Speaking of conflicting demands on Members’ time, I went to chair my board meeting yesterday. It took two hours. I came into the House of Commons early, at about 7.30 in the morning, and at about 10 o’clock I got on the tube and went to my office. I chaired the meeting and was back here by noon. I have to ask: what is the big danger in my popping off to London Bridge for two hours, once a month? What mischief is created by that?

Paul Flynn: If there were a crisis in one of the hon. Gentleman’s businesses involving large sums of money, and he had to make a choice between dealing with that and an important constituency matter here, which way would he go? That illustrates the problem of dual loyalties and dual wages.

John Hemming: I am lucky, in that I am able to arrange things so that that does not happen. I am in control of the timing in the business. Obviously, my priority is with Parliament. My duty is to Parliament, as is quite clear under our constitution and, like most hon. Members, I work seven days a week performing that duty. Admittedly I only did half a day on Sunday, and I might finish by 4 o’clock on a Saturday, but I do work the standard 60, 70 or 80 hours a week, depending on what is going on.
	It has been suggested that it would be reasonable to pay people like me who have large external earnings a lower rate of pay here. I do not mind that, as long as no one says that I am not a full-time MP. This is what I resent about the motion. Its argument is that I am not doing this job correctly for my constituents because I happen also to chair a business that I have run for many years.

Chris Williamson: Would the hon. Gentleman accept that there is an issue of perception involved? The perception is that hon. Members’ directorships or consultancies could influence the way in which they vote on certain issues. As I mentioned in my speech, people feel that certain Members voted for the national health service reorganisation so that they could gain financially from it.

John Hemming: I accept that this is about conflicts of interest, and there is a problem when external bodies control what Members of Parliament do. I am a member of a trade union, so I am not anti-trade union, but if the unions are controlling what the Labour party is doing, that is not a good environment.
	Similarly, there is a problem with having a second job as a Minister. That really creates a conflict of interest, because Ministers can lose their ministerial salary if they do not vote along party lines in Parliament. We accept that as part of our constitution, but it clearly involves a conflict of interest, in that Ministers have to support the Government. I am lucky as a Back Bencher; people say that I can afford to be independent. I will not lose any income if I happen to rebel against the party.

Oliver Colvile: Does the hon. Gentleman remember that, at the beginning of the 20th century, people had to resign their seat if they wanted to become a Cabinet Minister? That must have been pretty devastating at the time.

John Hemming: The last such resignation was in the 1960s, when the practice went against the then Government and was brought to an end. The second job of being a Minister is clearly demanding, and it undermines that Member’s constituency activity.
	The wording of the motion is absolutely dreadful, in that it would pick up one of my businesses but not the other. Why is that? What is the sense in picking up one structure of ownership and not another? The Opposition are also suggesting that we should not take the earned money, but they have no problem with those Members who are shareholders taking unearned income. Traditionally, Labour Members thought that earned income was more acceptable than unearned income, but they now seem to be arguing that we should have our unearned income. That is easy enough for me to structure, as I am in control of my corporate structures, but it is difficult for other people in other circumstances. The whole thing is frankly absurd. It drives us on again to what I think the hon. Member for Derby North was arguing for—the development of a political class. He did say that. He said that the Labour party wants a political class—a concept according to which we work only in politics and do not have any experience outside it.

Helen Goodman: No, no, no, no—the hon. Gentleman completely misses the point. It is perfectly possible to do as I did and have three different jobs before entering this House. That gave me more than 20 years of working experience in different institutions, which I can bring to bear on the politics—without having another paid job alongside being a Member of Parliament.

John Hemming: The point I am making is a very simple one: I do not think we should have a political class. An Opposition Member has called for a political class—he said those words, and I see nods around the Chamber—but I think that is very dangerous. It is dangerous to have a situation where external bodies beyond the Government, who do control votes in Parliament, control people in Parliament. Apart from being extremely badly drafted, the motion drives things further towards a political class. Thus people who have not had real jobs go through the special adviser process and all that sort of thing, ending up not being in the real world. That moves against the concept of people being able to be Members of Parliament for a short period of time, and what do we gain from it? Nothing.

David Anderson: This is turning into a navel-gazing debate, but it should not be, because it is not about us but about what the people who elect us think about us. It is about real engagement and representation in the world, so I want to provide some examples of what is happening in the real world of work.
	A young lady in my part of the world told me today that she has got two jobs—or she has almost got two jobs. After 30 years as a machinist, she was made redundant, so every day she sits at home at 7.20 in the morning waiting to see whether she will get a phone call inviting her to get in her car and go to work at 8 o’clock. If she does not get that phone call, she rings the local newsagents to ask whether they have any work for her in the shop. She does not get any pay for either of those things. That is how she is living.
	Her partner is on a zero-hours contract at a big factory in a town called Peterlee. He was told three weeks ago, “We want you to come to work on Sunday morning at 7 o’clock.” He and 11 colleagues went to work that Sunday morning, but when they got there, they were told, “Sorry. We don’t need you. You can go home.” No money.
	I welcome the fact that unemployment rates have gone down today, but in my part of the world they have gone up again. We in the north-east now have people who have been in long-term unemployment longer than for any time since 1996. An average of £1,350 a year has been lost in the north-east since 2010. In fact, living standards are back to where they were in 2000.
	Back in the unreal world, we have George Entwistle getting £450,000 for 54 days work—something like £8,500 a day. About 2,500 bankers, we were told this week, are paid more than £1 million a year; and all the millionaires in this country have had a £100,000 tax handout from the rest of us. That is estimated to apply to at least 8,000 people. Here is a number for this place: if that tax had not been handed out, 70,000 people could have been employed on the national minimum wage.
	And then there is us, stuck in the middle. We get £67,000 a year—three times the average salary, which is much more than the average salary in my part of the world. More than a quarter of Conservative MPs do not think £67,000 is enough, so have outside earnings; only 6% of Labour MPs do not think it is enough and have outside earnings. No doubt it is the same for some Members across the parties. There are multi-millions of pounds between the lot of us, because we are unhappy with £67,000 a year.

Andrew Griffiths: I am listening with interest to the hon. Gentleman, but does he share my concern that the motion does not cover a Scottish MP, for instance, who has spoken in three debates, voted in only 30% of votes, yet earns £100,000 or £200,000 from outside interests? Why is that not covered?

David Anderson: I agree with the hon. Gentleman; I do not think the motion is wide enough. The motion says, “You’re a full-time MP and you’re nothing else.” Whether or not someone votes 30% of the time or 100% of the time, they should not be paid any more than the basic salary of an MP. That is what the people of this country
	want us to be: full-time Members of Parliament.. They are sitting out there asking, “Why on earth do these people need to do more than they are doing already? Why should they be so different from us?” For at least the past five years, they have been asking, “Are these people on the same planet as us? Do they go to the same shops? Do they live in the same world?” They think that the answer to those questions is no, and unless we can convince them that we understand how they feel, they will not be interested in democracy. That is a long-term worry for the House. If we continue to be so unlike those people, they will become less and less likely to get off their backsides and vote for any of us, let alone those we are discussing today.

Jim Cunningham: The miners at Daw Mill lost their jobs recently. I wonder what they think about Members of Parliament having two jobs.

David Anderson: On Saturday I spoke to miners from Maltby colliery, which has closed in the last three months because of geological problems, and they were disgusted by the fact that Members of Parliament were making multi-millions of pounds. We are told that a Member once earned three quarters of a million pounds, and those miners are 35-year-old guys looking who face having no more work for the rest of their lives. They have dedicated themselves to an industry and worked hard for that industry, and now they find themselves ruined. What is happening to them is absolutely disastrous.
	How can our constituents be confident that we are committed to them—to their issues, their problems and their concerns—when we are focusing on outside work? Is being an MP not an honour and privilege, and is an MP not worthy of respect? If not, why not? Should that not be the case? How can we expect people to believe that we care for them, that we understand them, that we feel for them, if at the same time we are checking our diaries to see whether we are late for our next board meeting or court appearance?

Robert Flello: My hon. Friend is making an extremely good speech. Another issue is conflict. How would it be if we said to the police, for example, “You can take any other job you want?”

David Anderson: My hon. Friend is absolutely right. We tell members of the police force and people in local government, “You cannot do certain things in life because of the nature of your job.” But we say that we in the House of Commons should have carte blanche. Should I be able to go back down the pit on Saturday mornings—not that I can do that, because the pits have been shut—or do a job as a car worker? My constituents expect me to represent their interests. This job means total commitment in return for the utmost respect.
	During the last few weeks, in the Northern Ireland Affairs Committee and during our consideration of the Northern Ireland (Miscellaneous Provisions) Bill, we have committed ourselves to doing away with double-jobbing. Members of Parliament used to go to Holyrood, Stormont and Brussels as well as coming to the House of Commons. It is right that we put a stop to that, and we should stop all the other kinds of double- jobbing as well, because the people of this country will not understand if we are anything other than full-time MPs, dedicated to working in the House of Commons and in our constituencies on their behalf.

Robert Buckland: It is a pleasure to follow the hon. Member for Blaydon (Mr Anderson),who, I know, speaks from the heart on this and many other subjects. I agree with his analysis of the pressures faced by many working people who have one, two or even more jobs to do during the working week, but I must point out to him that the motion does not do what he wants. It is very narrowly defined. It deals with particular types of financial relationship, but it does not deal with partnerships or with contracts of employment. In his powerful speech, the right hon. Member for Greenwich and Woolwich (Mr Raynsford) demolished the basis for the motion.

Edward Leigh: Apart from the obvious point that the motion is defective—it does not mention earnings from, for instance, rented property—it constitutes an attempt to create a political class. The only way in which such people can express themselves, earn more money, or gain more power or prestige is to become Ministers, and that plays into the hands of Front Benchers. It gives them more and more power, and puts us more and more in their pockets.

Robert Buckland: If we breed a political class that enters this place with a diminished and diminishing knowledge of the outside world, the walls of the Westminster bubble will become thicker and thicker and we will genuinely create two nations, one of which will be entirely ignorant of the other.

Yvonne Fovargue: I spent 23 years working for a citizens advice bureau—outside Parliament—before I came to this place, and I continue to have regular meetings with citizens advice bureaux, in addition to my constituency surgeries. I believe that keeps me in touch with the real world sufficiently, without having another job operating a fraud trial.

Robert Buckland: I am grateful to the hon. Lady for that, and I sincerely pay tribute to the work she does. She understands that by keeping in touch she is making sure that her considerable knowledge does not go out of date, which is a very important point. A lot of Opposition Members and Government Members bring knowledge and work experience to this place, but there is a danger that once we enter the House we start to lose touch with our job experiences. That is why I decided after the election not to carry on practising at the Bar, but to sit part-time as a Crown court recorder, where I do 15 days in the year. That is the minimum required, and the appointment was made just before I was elected to this House.

Paul Flynn: Does the hon. Gentleman surrender his salary during the time he is away from this place, as would happen in any other job? Another hon. Member said that he was away on a court case, but should he not have his wages here reduced, as would happen in any other occupation where someone is not available to do the full-time job for which they get a full-time wage?

Robert Buckland: I am disappointed with the hon. Gentleman. I do not do that, but I do keep fully in touch with what is going on, as with my work as a
	Member of Parliament. The fact that I, on 15 days of the year, choose to serve the public interest—that is what sitting as a part-time judge involves—keeps me in touch with the work that I used to do as a lawyer. It makes me keep up to date with sentencing law and the law of criminal justice, and it enhances the contributions I can make in this House. What is wrong with that?

Andrew Griffiths: I refer to my entry in the Register of Members’ Financial Interests. My hon. Friend is making a case in his usual reasonable and considered way. Does he agree that the experience and knowledge he gains in carrying out his role is hugely valuable, and is a great benefit and boon to the constituents he helps daily?

Robert Buckland: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for that. I am not the first person to do this—many former Labour Members, including a number of distinguished ones I can think of, did exactly the same and brought great experience to this House. They probably brought greater learning than I do. If we lose touch with that experience, this place will become the poorer. In the race to the hair shirts, we will throw out a lot of the beneficial influences that can be brought into this place.

Oliver Colvile: rose—

Robert Buckland: I had better not give way any further because I am running out of time. I accept that it is for individual Members to make judgments about the balances they have to strike—believe you me, Madam Deputy Speaker, I view it as a great honour and privilege to serve the people of my constituency, and I think about that every working moment. However, I do feel that I strike a fair balance in the work I do. I am available for my constituents and I work as hard as any other MP to fight for their interests. Bringing into this place the work that I have done in the past and the experience that I have gained, and keeping in touch with it in the way I do during the recess is beneficial.

Helen Goodman: The hon. Gentleman, too, is being sincere in what he is saying, but does he not think it slightly incongruous that this House is the last place where what he describes is possible? Even in the other place people are not allowed to be part of the Chamber and part of the judiciary.

Robert Buckland: I do not think that is actually right, because the office of recorder was not included in the exemptions in the Constitutional Reform Act 2005, which, of course, was passed by the previous Labour Government. I make no apology for that, because I believe that individual—

Jon Trickett: Separation of powers.

Robert Buckland: I hear the words “separation of powers”, but we do not have an American system, and nor should we have. If we follow that to its logical conclusion, we turn ourselves into something not at all in keeping with the understood and learned traditions of the British constitution. It can be a good thing that several colleagues in this place have the sort of experience that I have, although I would be the last person to say that we want an identikit House full of lawyers. My hon. Friend the
	Member for Bracknell (Dr Lee) made a powerful speech about his medical practice, so people’s experience in many walks of life enhances our debates.
	If the spasm of emotion that underlies what we hear from Labour Members is taken to its logical conclusion, the House will be diminished. Their proposal would not enhance the quality of the legislation that we pass. It would only make the public look at us once again as a rather odd set of individuals of diminishing relevance who contribute less and less to the public life of this country, so we should oppose the motion.

Paul Flynn: This is hardly a spasm on my part. I greatly respect the hon. Member for South Swindon (Mr Buckland), but may I tell him that it was 16 years ago that I wrote in a book that all MPs’ additional earnings should be put into a charitable fund or used elsewhere? I repeated that in another splendid book that I published a short while ago. All the considerable royalties from that book go to charity—why not, because I already get a full-time wage for what I do?
	I am sorry that I picked on the hon. Gentleman during his speech, but for five weeks last year I could not act as an MP. I did not receive any salary during that time—quite rightly so. We forget that we live in a little bubble with a system that we are used to, but people watching the debate and tweeting are baffled that anyone can say, “I have a job paying £65,000, but other jobs get my priority and attention at certain time.” If Members have to perform outside work, it would be easy—and absolutely right—to deduct the money earned from their parliamentary salary.

John Hemming: Should unearned income also be deducted from a Member’s salary?

Paul Flynn: The hon. Gentleman makes an interesting point, but it is part of a different argument.
	The public will not see this subject in subtle tones or have regard to the lawyers’ arguments we are hearing. In 2009, after the great screaming nightmare of the expenses scandal, our reputation was at rock bottom, but now it is even worse—it is subterranean. We saw the reaction to the suggestion that MPs’ salaries should be increased: all the old resentment was churned up.
	The Daily Telegraph did democracy a reasonable turn by submitting a freedom of information request that demanded to know the most popular book that wicked MPs were borrowing from the Commons Library. I am sure that its journalists were desperate for another negative story about MPs and that they prayed in their offices that that book would be “Fifty Shades of Gray”, “How to Keep a Moat”, or “Duck House Owning for Beginners”. However, the book in greatest demand at the Library was the improving tract that I wrote, which recommends that MPs live off their salary.
	We must look at this from the perspective of outsiders, not by considering subtle points about what is unearned income and what is a salary. If Members want to get outside experience, there are splendid institutions in the House through which we can go off to join the Army, Navy or Air Force, or secure a fellowship with a commercial firm over many months. Those experiences are marvellous,
	but the important point is that they are not paid. The great resentment among the public arises because we receive a full-time wage and so we should be doing full-time work.

Edward Leigh: The hon. Gentleman talks about resentment, but the public are angry about MPs’ expenses and salaries because they pay for them. Is he really suggesting that the public are furious that a Member of Parliament attends 12 board meetings a year? Does that really make them angry when they are not paying for it?

Hon. Members: Yes!

Paul Flynn: The answer is a resounding yes. I am sure that members of the public will write to the hon. Gentleman, because he explained earlier that he left Parliament, playing truant, to go to court and defend someone in a case, and no doubt he was paid a huge sum to do so, but for that period he was paid to be an MP, even though he could not possibly have performed his duties to the full extent that he should have done. Do the public resent that? Yes they do.

Oliver Colvile: Earlier this year I had to appear in the jury at the Old Bailey and so had to be away from this place for a week—[Interruption.] Some Members might think that I was there on trial, but I was actually doing my civic duty, and Members of Parliament are now required to do that.

Lindsay Hoyle: Order. Mr Colvile, I am not sure that quite fits with paid directorships and consultancies, so I think we will let your good duty in court go—[Interruption.] Sir Edward, I do not think we need any help from you either.

Paul Flynn: Again, there is a great gulf between what is happening in this Chamber and what is happening outside. I believe that it is entirely reasonable for Members who wish to go off and do other work to do so under certain circumstances, but let us get away from the idea that MPs, who get a handsome salary as far as most of our constituents are concerned, should greedily look for other earnings. Of course it is an advantage also to work as a journalist, a writer or whatever else, but when it comes to the crunch and there is a crisis, when Members know that they should be here writing to Ministers, demanding answers, making a case or meeting people, if someone comes along and says they’ll pay them ten grand to write an article in the next 24 hours, what choice will they make? If there is no money involved, there is no real choice, as we know where our loyalties lie. We must escape from that. I appeal to Members: do they not know how low the public’s regard for us is?

Andrew Turner: Would it not be clear, if we on the Government side of the House recognised that the people who would vote Labour believe that the amount of money going to them should be capped and the money should not go beyond £65,000, while we on this side of the House generally—not in my case, actually—do not feel that it is necessary to limit us and we can keep the money?

Paul Flynn: I have very little time to answer the hon. Gentleman, so I will return to my original case. Forget the intricacies of the matter and see it in simple terms, which is how the public will see it. Think of what the
	howling headlines will be if MPs insist on a full-time wage and then get additional wages on top of it. No one can do two jobs adequately.

David Morris: It is a pleasure to follow the hon. Member for Newport West (Paul Flynn). I wanted to ask him what he thinks constitute an MP’s hours of salary. He made his case eloquently, but he did not say whether he, when writing his books—I have read some and really enjoyed them—was actually working as an MP. However, that is for another day.
	This is another example of how the Opposition suddenly noticed in June 2010 that we have to make lots of changes in this country. Their argument today follows 13 years in which they could have done what they are trying to do today. In fact, in 2009 they backed plans to have greater openness but not a ban on second jobs. As someone who does not have a second job, I suggest that more flexibility is a good thing. I believe strongly in being flexible in our approach but also transparent about it. I think that we have enough transparency. We have the excellent Independent Parliamentary Standards Authority, with which we are all acquainted, and the Register of Members’ Financial Interests, in which every Member must list their interests.

Oliver Colvile: I have shares in the company I set up. I do no work for it, but I put that in my entry in the register. Should that also be prohibited?

David Morris: That makes the point that the whole motion is very badly written. My hon. Friend should be remunerated if he works. My hon. Friend the Member for Brecon and Radnorshire (Roger Williams), who was here earlier, is a farmer, and he made a good point. If he earned money from his farm but had to give it away, how would his farm stay open and profitable? He is a Member of Parliament but he has to be a farmer as well.

Karl Turner: On this very basic point, does the hon. Gentleman think that his constituents would find it acceptable for him to have two, three or perhaps even more forms of employment as well as being a Member of this House?

David Morris: The hon. Gentleman will have to do a lot better than that, because I have only one job, and that is Member of Parliament for Morecambe and Lunesdale. We were not all hatched out of an egg as a politician. Some people here have businesses such as farming that go back for generations. We have to take all this into consideration, and the motion does not do so.
	Many of these outside earnings are from industries and companies that have a link to hon. Members’ constituencies. For example, the former right hon. Member for South Shields earned £175,000 for being vice-chairman of Sunderland football club. He is a man I greatly respect, I might add, before I get any accusations thrown at me in that regard. That was clearly not part of his work in this House, but it assisted his constituency. It could therefore be argued that he should not be expected to do all that work for free because it is in line with and complements his parliamentary work.
	Whatever one’s view, would it not be better to allow the voters to decide? We have achieved transparency. We should not be creating rule after rule just to grab headlines. What we are debating, as ever, strikes at the hypocrisy of the Opposition. They are worried about corporate lobbyists but not trade unions. They want to complain about outside earnings even though lots of their Members are being paid by the unions. They are worried about party funding, yet Co-op remains the only company in this country to own a political party. [Interruption.] This is phoney outrage.

Chris Bryant: The bit that the hon. Gentleman completely leaves out of the equation when he says, “Let’s leave it to the voters,” is that the truth of the matter is that the vast majority of parliamentary seats are safe seats where, frankly, anybody could be put up as long as they were from the right political party. [Interruption.] I say that very fairly; it is also an issue about Rhondda. That means that it is much more incumbent on the whole House to take a view on it.

David Morris: I thank the hon. Gentleman for that eloquently put intervention.
	Every time this House has a knee-jerk reaction to a few headlines we always get it wrong. We are better when we allow the public to make the judgments in this respect. Call me old-fashioned, but I believe that those judgments should come through the ballot box, not through focus groups and rules.

David Anderson: The hon. Gentleman said that Members are paid by trade unions. Will he withdraw that or put the list of those Members in the Library, because Members are not paid by trade unions?

David Morris: That is a matter for another debate.

Lindsay Hoyle: Order. You cannot suggest that we have another debate. The matter has been put on the record, and that is the record as it stands.

David Morris: Thank you, Mr Deputy Speaker. It is arguable, though, is it not, how many Labour Members are being subsidised by the unions? Come on, hands up—let’s see you. How many are being supported by the unions? [Interruption.]

Lindsay Hoyle: Order. Sit down, Mr Morris. Let us get into the habit of using the Chamber in the way it should be used. In fairness, I think that the matter has been put on the record and straightened out. I am sure that you want to participate in the debate on directorships and remuneration of those who receive them.

David Morris: I totally agree, Mr Deputy Speaker, but I have been sidetracked from what I wanted to say. If people do not want an MP who has a job outside Parliament, they should not vote for him.

Pat Glass: I entered this House in 2010 and did so because I wanted to change things for the people I represent. In that sense, I do not think I am different from the vast majority of Members,
	whichever side of the Chamber they sit on. We might have different priorities and we may have different policies, but our aims are the same.
	Like many other Members who entered this House in 2010, I left a well-paid job—it was much better paid than that of an MP—but I understood exactly what I was taking on. I knew what the job paid and the kind of hours I would need to work. I have not regretted that decision. I did not enter this House with the expectation of using it as a stepping stone to lucrative company director posts or as a route into other, better paid jobs or consultancies.
	I understand that some Members have more than one job and some have several. My take on that is that I honestly do not know how they do it. Being the Member of Parliament for North West Durham is more than a full-time job. It takes up all my time here and in the constituency, and I believe that that is how it should be. The people of my constituency, whether they voted for me or not, deserve nothing less, and I simply do not understand why some MPs think that their job here is part time or that their constituents deserve less than a full-time MP.
	I accept that some Members have special talents, skills or qualifications that would be wasted if they were not able to use them outside this House. I have spent a career working in education and consider myself to have specialist knowledge of the education world, particularly with regard to special needs or additional educational needs. I am regularly asked to write articles and to speak at venues to young people and their teachers and schools, and I am happy to share my skills and knowledge with any group or organisation that is prepared to work in the best interests of those people. The difference is that I am never paid for it. I never accept payment, because I consider that work to be part and parcel of the job that I am paid to do as a Member of Parliament.

Tim Loughton: I think most of us would accept that an awful lot of the things that MPs do with charities as part of our job take us well beyond normal office hours, but could the hon. Lady explain the motion, which refers only to “paid directorships or consultancies”? What is her view of GPs and people in the health service who continue their second job while they are here and authors who spend a lot of their time writing books and pamphlets and getting paid for it?

Pat Glass: If the hon. Gentleman had been present in the debate for more than three minutes, he would have understood it better.
	The current system allows MPs to take additional jobs and to get paid for them so long as they declare them in the Register of Members’ Financial Interests. I do not understand this. It seems to be completely within the rules and I am willing to accept that in the vast majority of cases MPs can operate without any conflict of interest in practice. However, we have to understand the perception outside this place. This is a Westminster bubble.

Edward Leigh: Will the hon. Lady give way?

Pat Glass: No, I will not.
	Government Members have argued about the intricacies of the motion and the legal aspects, but this is about how it plays outside this place. The perception among the public is that MPs are getting kick-backs for services rendered, and that damages the reputation of politics—it damages the reputation of us all. I support a ban on remunerated directorships and paid consultancies and a cap on other forms of earned income. We have a cap on benefits, so why cannot we have a cap on MPs’ income?
	Government Members have argued about this and confused the issue, but it is simple: it is an issue of access and of privileged access. It is about people outside this place paying for special access and privilege in a way that the vast majority of the people who vote for us and who pay their taxes and MPs’ salaries never can.

Ian Lucas: Before I was elected, I ran a solicitors practice as a sole practitioner. I gave up my business, which I had worked hard to build up, to become a Member of Parliament. I made a commitment at that time that I would work full time as a Member of Parliament. I think that was the right thing to do.
	I do not believe that my giving up that business and stopping practising as a solicitor has prevented me from being a member of the local community, maintaining my relationship with the legal profession in my community or keeping in touch with the people I represent. Government Members are promulgating the extraordinary idea that to remain in touch with the outside world, we have to receive a salary. We do hundreds of things in our job as Members of Parliament which ensure that we have a connection with our constituents.

Edward Leigh: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

Ian Lucas: I will make a little progress and if I have time, I will give way.
	It has always amazed me that some Members of Parliament continue to do other jobs. Why would someone become a Member of Parliament if they wanted to be a company director or a consultant? They could be a company director or a consultant without being a Member of Parliament. Becoming an MP is not a route to becoming a company director or a consultant—or is it? I always ask myself why it is that companies want MPs as consultants or directors. Is it for their unique insights on the world? Even the cleverest of MPs—and there are some very self-regarding MPs on the Government Benches today—should not flatter themselves. It is clear why such posts are offered to Members of Parliament. It is not because of their unique intelligence, but because they are Members of Parliament. It is because of the influence that Members of Parliament have and the access that that buys.

John Hemming: Does the hon. Gentleman accept that I appointed myself to that job and that when I did so, I was not a Member of Parliament, although I had stood for Parliament? It was therefore not a factor in the consideration.

Ian Lucas: As interesting as the hon. Gentleman thinks he is, I was not talking about him.
	No one should have privileged access to an MP. Even more importantly, no one should be able to secure access to an MP by paying them. For that reason, I welcome the proposal of the Leader of the Opposition that MPs should be prevented from holding paid directorships and consultancies. Such arrangements give those who pay for it unique access to MPs.
	It was interesting that the Leader of the House referred to a job offer that he received after he became a Member of Parliament. I would be interested to know why that company decided he was the person they wanted to give a job to. Does he know? Can he tell us? I would be delighted to take an intervention. Let me tell him the reason: it is because he is an MP and the company wanted access to him.

Edward Leigh: I wonder whether we can get a bit of consensus across the Back Benches. Is not the real problem those second jobs that take MPs away from their constituencies, such as being a Minister? Can we agree that Ministers should not be paid any more than Back Benchers?

Ian Lucas: For far too short a time, I was a Minister. I got there in the end. I believe that being a Minister benefited my constituents. They understood that being a Minister was an important part of my job as a Member of Parliament. Ministers are also Members of Parliament, and I am sure that the hon. Gentleman is not suggesting that they in any way diminish themselves as MPs by being Ministers.
	The key to the motion is access to MPs. I have not spoken about the hundreds of thousands of pounds that some Government Members earn. [Interruption.] I will not name them, because unlike the Leader of the House I have not given them notice. However, MPs should have a look at the Register of Members’ Financial Interests: a number of Members earn hundreds of thousands of pounds. This issue is about buying access. MPs should look at themselves in the mirror and ask whether they are really so clever that companies, which are engaged in business MPs have no experience in, really want them to join their boards for their personal knowledge and insight. The reality is that companies want privileged access to MPs and are prepared to pay for it.

James Duddridge: I know the hon. Gentleman reasonably well. Does he accept that some people take extra jobs based on their experience? For example, I help a small business in Liverpool, which I have known for nearly 20 years. It came to me and said, “Could you help us do what you did for us 15 years ago?” That was the basis on which I took that work. I also found it interesting to travel to Liverpool.

Ian Lucas: The hon. Gentleman says he helps that business. I help businesses in my constituency, but I do not get paid for it—that is the key point. I have an equal obligation to all my constituents. I do not allow access to my time to be bought by an individual or a company. We need to support the motion.

Michael Dugher: As my hon. Friend the Member for Hemsworth (Jon Trickett) set out when opening the debate, Labour will make a
	commitment in its manifesto at the next general election to regulate second jobs. That is why we have led the debate today.
	Our motion on the Order Paper states:
	“as part of a wider regulatory framework for second jobs, from the start of the next Parliament, no hon. Members should be permitted to hold paid directorships or consultancies.”
	There have been some interesting critiques of the draftsmanship of the motion, yet no amendment was tabled. Government Members have said that the motion is either too narrow or too wide. They could have tabled an amendment. We repeat the call we made today that if Government Members are serious about addressing this issue and about improving the motion, we could begin talks this afternoon. Of course, they are not interested in improving the motion—that is a complete red herring.
	Decades ago, when this place resembled more a gentlemen’s club than a people’s Parliament, being an MP was seen as a second job. However, it is impossible to deny that things have moved on and that, rightly, the public’s expectations have changed. Of course it is good for Members to keep connected to the world beyond Westminster and to have outside interests, a point made by my right hon. Friend the Member for Greenwich and Woolwich (Mr Raynsford) and the hon. Member for South Swindon (Mr Buckland). It is important that we remain connected with the outside world, but I have to say this, particularly to Government Members: being in touch does not depend on a Member’s ability to earn unlimited and large amounts of money from the private sector. That is a very interesting definition of being in touch. It is perfectly possible to have “outside interests”, in the true sense of the words, without having unlimited outside financial interests.
	A legitimate question was asked about MPs not being able to retain their skills—in medicine, law or engineering, for example—and whether that would leave the House worse off. We have been clear that MPs would still be able to do a certain amount of work. They would be able to keep up their expertise by, for example, working as a GP like the hon. Member for Bracknell (Dr Lee), or as lawyers or engineers. They could still do that, but a limit would be placed on how much they could earn. As hon. Members have pointed out, such limits have been applied successfully in many countries. Clearly, the current rules are not fit for purpose in the 21st century. This is about changing politics to make it more open, transparent and trusted. My right hon. Friend the Member for Doncaster North (Edward Miliband) said last week:
	“The vast majority of all MPs have performed their duties properly within the rules. And raising this issue casts no doubt upon that. But we should question the rules. The question of MPs second outside jobs has been discussed but not properly addressed for a generation. The British people expect their MPs to be representing them and the country not anyone else.”
	This has been an important debate. My hon. Friend the Member for Derby North (Chris Williamson) hit the nail on the head when he talked about public perception and our absolute duty to repair public trust in the politic process, and rightly referred to the much stronger restrictions on MPs’ outside earnings elsewhere in the world. We can look at those systems. My hon. Friend the Member for Blaydon (Mr Anderson) gave
	the House a reality check, pointing out that MPs were paid three times the average wage. He talked about the miners he met at the weekend at Maltby pit and spoke with passion and principle about people out there for whom life was very tough and who might be watching this debate, wondering, “What planet are some of those people on?”
	My hon. Friend the Member for Newport West (Paul Flynn) reinforced that point by talking about the bubble we sometimes live in here. He said that the public would be rightly baffled by some of today’s contributions. My hon. Friend the Member for North West Durham (Pat Glass) made an interesting proposal: since the Government are keen on capping benefits, why not a cap on outside earnings for MPs? That is worth considering. My hon. Friend the Member for Wrexham (Ian Lucas) also made a powerful case for reform.
	I listened to right hon. and hon. Members on the Government Benches defending the status quo. The Leader of the House was his usual complacent self, taking a “nothing to see here, move along” approach in his opening remarks. Interestingly, the hon. Member for Birmingham, Yardley (John Hemming) talked about simply popping off to London Bridge for a few hours to do a bit of work and bemoaned the creation of a political class, which was exactly the same argument raised in 1911 when it was decided to pay MPs in the first place.
	The prospect of the current arrangements continuing into the future, allowing right hon. and hon. Members to earn hundreds of thousands of pounds from outside interests—[Interruption.] The Minister of State, Home Department, the hon. Member for Taunton Deane (Mr Browne), who probably has one eye on the reshuffle and that Cabinet post that never seems to come, will understand that the former Prime Minister does not receive a single penny in outside earnings. I am happy to help him on that important fact. Outside interests contribute not to the richness of debate in the House, but to the richness of individual Members; and they add value not to our deliberations, but to Members’ bank accounts. That is why things must change.
	I have looked at the scale of the problem. Apparently, 18 Governments Members have 53 extra jobs between them. I sympathise with the Whips; I do not know how they manage to get these people in for a Division. Five Members have 19 jobs between them, while an estimated 85 Conservative Members—almost one in three—have second jobs and directorships.
	To conclude, there will be a clear choice at the next general election between the Labour party, which wants big reforms, our politics opened up, and big money taken out of politics—including new rules and new limits on second jobs—and those in the Government, who say they want more of the same, the status quo, no change and business as usual. We can either look forward, as the Labour party will do, to a new Parliament and a new settlement where public, not private, interest comes first, or look to the Conservatives and the Liberal Democrats, for whom second jobs have because second nature and where the public invariably come second too.
	In 20 years’ time we will no doubt look back and wonder why it took so long to introduce the changes we desperately need for new limits on MPs’ second jobs. History will record which party was on the side of change and of the public.

Tom Brake: This debate has generated much heat and no light. It is difficult to respond to a debate on a motion that contains so little substance, and that has no rationale behind it and nothing to be said for it. As we have heard, the Opposition have no idea what sort of new regulatory framework they want or why we need one.
	Let me address some of the specific points raised by hon. Members. The right hon. Member for Greenwich and Woolwich (Mr Raynsford) said that he does not want to restrict proper links between MPs and the outside world. He questioned the rationale behind the Labour motion, and highlighted contradictions in it. I agree with him entirely. My hon. Friend the Member for Bracknell (Dr Lee) highlighted the value of his ongoing involvement in the NHS and the direct benefit that his constituents derive from that. The hon. Member for Derby North (Chris Williamson) said that the motion was clear, although when asked for a definition of the regulatory framework, he was not able to provide one and neither was any other Labour Member.
	My hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham, Yardley (John Hemming) highlighted the nonsense of opposing directorships and consultancies, but not opposing partnerships, from which—looking at his entry in the Register of Members’ Financial Interests—he derives a certain not insubstantial income. The hon. Member for Blaydon (Mr Anderson) seemed to suggest that hon. Members having second jobs was depriving young people in his constituency of jobs, which I think was a fallacious argument. I commend him, however, for spotting the flaw in Labour’s motion, because it does not do what he wants. He wanted all second jobs to be addressed, but that is not what the motion does.
	My hon. Friend the Member for South Swindon (Mr Buckland) sits as a part-time judge, and I noticed in the Register of Members’ Financial Interests that the days he did so were days on which the House was in recess. Having spent time with him on Bill Committees, I know he brings his experience to bear and makes a substantial contribution to the debates as a result.
	I was going to apologise to the hon. Member for Newport West (Paul Flynn) for having reduced his income after I was forced to suspend him from the House some months ago, but I then realised that he was plugging his own book in the debate and I felt less sorry for him. Presumably, the production of that book took him away from spending time on his constituents’ business.
	My hon. Friend the Member for Morecambe and Lunesdale (David Morris) rightly drew attention to the deeply flawed nature of the Opposition motion, and asked whether the Opposition oppose second jobs, earning extra money or having a conflict of interest, because it is not clear. The hon. Member for North West Durham (Pat Glass) also ducked the question of why the motion applies only to directorships and consultancies, and went on to call for a cap on earnings, which is not in the motion.
	The hon. Member for Wrexham (Ian Lucas) said that no one should secure access to an MP by paying them, and I thought he was about to refer to Unite. I am sorry to learn that his unique experience did not secure him a lengthy stay in a ministerial post, and I hazard to suggest that he is safe from the approaches of companies wishing him to sit on their boards.
	Finally, the hon. Member for Barnsley East (Michael Dugher) said in summing up that he is committed to regulating second jobs. Again, he did not provide any clarity on which second jobs. Why are some acceptable but others not? He also asked why the Government had not tabled an amendment, but it is not our business to table amendments to a deeply flawed motion. It is up to him and the Opposition to ensure that the motion they present is fit for purpose. Clearly it was not, and his class war speech was very much inspired by his union puppet masters.
	In conclusion, the House will have noticed the contrast in approaches. It could not be clearer. Instead of leading a serious debate on a concrete proposal, the Opposition have gone for grandstanding and spreading slurry indiscriminately, referring to the perception of a problem while denying that there is a problem. They are calling for regulation of second jobs, but from today’s evidence I would say that we need better regulation of the day job to stop Opposition spokesmen requiring the House to waste its time considering feeble and confused motions such as this one. The Government, on the other hand, are committed to promoting transparency, both in Members’ relations with the public and in the political system as a whole. We want to shine a light on this place and let the people make their choice. I urge the House to reject the motion.

Question put.
	The House divided:
	Ayes 223, Noes 310.

Question accordingly negatived.

Managing Risk in the NHS

Lindsay Hoyle: I advise the House that Mr Speaker has selected the amendment in the name of the Prime Minister.

Andy Burnham: I beg to move,
	That this House is concerned about the Government’s approach to managing risk in the NHS; notes that the Government is still to respond fully to the Francis Report, despite the Prime Minister promising on 6 February 2013, Official Report, column 281, a detailed response by the end of March 2013; believes that the Government is in danger of ignoring the lessons of recent failures by cutting thousands of nursing staff; is concerned at recent reports revealing pressure to roll out the NHS 111 telephone service despite serious concerns about it not being safe to do so; is further concerned at recent reports that plans are not in place to avert an Accident and Emergency crisis next winter; recognises that the 14 Trusts investigated by Sir Bruce Keogh have seen increasing problems since May 2010; further believes that the Government’s failure to implement the key recommendations of the Francis Report, combined with the disruption of the recent NHS reorganisation, risks making it more likely that failures of care will happen in future; further notes the Government’s recent commitment to openness and transparency in the NHS; therefore calls on the Government to publish the NHS transition risk register as ordered by the Information Commissioner and Information Rights Tribunal; and further calls on the Government to bring forward urgent implementation of key Francis recommendations to improve patient safety, including a duty of candour, benchmarks on safe staffing and the regulation of healthcare assistants.
	I have called this debate today to try to map a way forward for an NHS which, right now, is feeling battered, bruised and under attack. It has just come through the worst crisis in accident and emergency for more than a decade and it is only months away from another winter which, if nothing changes, will most likely be just as bad or possibly worse for patients. I spend considerable time on the NHS front line shadowing staff, so I pick up what they say. They feel exhausted, unsupported and have a profound sense of uncertainty about where the NHS is heading. Today it is in a fragile condition. The way the Government conduct themselves in the coming months and the decisions they make will have a major bearing on their ability to manage the risks that the NHS is facing. For the sake of patients everywhere, they must urgently raise the morale of NHS staff and restore some trust. Later I will make some suggestions on how that can be done.
	The Keogh report was a verdict not on the past, but on what is happening now. Standards have fallen, not only in the 14 trusts considered in the Keogh review, but across the NHS. Throughout the first six months of this year, hospitals were sailing dangerously close to the wind, operating way beyond safe bed occupancy levels, with general chaos in accident and emergency. How did we get here? To hear Ministers now, it is as though the last three years have not happened—it is all about the last Government. However, one of the main reasons why the NHS is struggling is the destabilising effect of a reorganisation that nobody wanted and nobody voted for. It is exactly three years since the bombshell of the “Liberating the NHS” White Paper landed on an unsuspecting NHS.
	This Government falsely accuse the last Government of ignoring warnings, but warnings do not come much bigger than this: the story of the Health and Social
	Care Act 2012, in a study that is aptly titled “Never Again?”—I think we can all say amen to that. It quotes senior civil servants who tried to encourage the former Secretary of State out of his grand plans to reorganise the NHS. One senior civil servant in the Department said:
	“The biggest challenge was trying to get the secretary of state to focus on the money—the £20 billion and the sheer scale of the financial challenge”.
	The Secretary of State’s attitude, however, was:
	“I am going to do these reforms anyway, irrespective of whether there are any financial issues. I am not going to let the mere matter of the financial context stop me getting on with this”.
	Another civil servant said:
	“We did point out to him that his plans were written before the big financial challenge, and didn’t that change things? He completely did not see that at all. He completely ignored it”.

Andrew Percy: Will the right hon. Gentleman way?

Andy Burnham: I will give way to the hon. Gentleman, but I hope he will respond to what he has just heard.

Andrew Percy: If a few more of the shadow Secretary of State’s colleagues had turned up to this debate, they would be able to respond to those points for him.
	If I may take him back to his comments about the challenges in A and E, which have been severe this Christmas and winter, does he accept that one of the things that he and his party got wrong in government was to cut beds and close wards before putting in place proper intermediate care services? People in my constituency could not get into their local hospitals this year because of the beds that were cut when his party was in government.

Andy Burnham: The hon. Gentleman is doing what the Conservatives have been doing for quite a few weeks now, which is rewriting history. Does he recall the general chaos in A and E before 1997? Does he remember people waiting for hours on trolleys before they were seen or people spending a day in A and E departments? When we left government, 98% of trusts across the country were meeting the four-hour target. Sadly, we cannot say the same about the NHS on his Government’s watch.
	What I have just given to the House was a warning of all warnings not to proceed with a reckless reorganisation at a time when the NHS was facing the biggest financial challenge in its history. Senior civil servants gave those warnings; the Government ploughed on regardless. That was a monumental mistake, combining the biggest ever financial challenge with the biggest ever reorganisation. Eyes were taken off the ball at the worst possible moment.

Dave Watts: Does my right hon. Friend know when the Secretary of State last visited an accident and emergency unit? May I suggest, through my right hon. Friend, that he comes with me to my accident and emergency unit and sees the chaos he has created?

Andy Burnham: Promises were made before the reorganisation to my hon. Friend and his colleagues in St Helens, Knowsley and Halton about the future of
	the hospital, because there was concern that certain commitments would not be honoured by the new organisations. And it came to pass: they were not honoured. My hon. Friend asked whether the Secretary of State had been to an A and E. We know that he did not turn up at one until April, yet he had already stood up and criticised hospitals for “coasting”. How on earth could he make such comments when he had not bothered to get his feet on the ground to see what was happening in the NHS? Unbelievable.
	The Government took a huge gamble when they proceeded with the reorganisation at a time of financial stress and in the teeth of opposition from the public and the professions. If the Secretary of State truly believes, as he said yesterday, that transparency is a disinfectant—he is nodding—and if he wants to show leadership from the front from today onwards, should he not now commit to publishing the risk register that accompanied the Government’s reorganisation of the NHS? [Interruption.] He claims again that this was all about the last Government, but let me explain the difference to him. This Government withheld the risk register in defiance of the Information Rights Tribunal and the Appeal Court. Is he proud of that? What message does he think that that sends to the boards of those NHS organisations that he is now asking to act with maximum transparency? I am afraid that it sends absolutely the wrong message. He will not foster the right culture in risk management in the NHS if there is one rule for the Department and another for everybody else.

Andrew Selous: What is the right hon. Gentleman’s view of the previous culture of secret board-to-board meetings, at which the boards of a local trust and a strategic health authority met in private to try to deal with issues? In retrospect, does he agree that that was probably not the best way to deal with serious issues, because the very people who were responsible would perhaps not get the blame?

Andy Burnham: Let me give the hon. Gentleman a direct answer. One of the things that shocked me most when I received the Francis report, which I commissioned under the previous Government, was the revelation that on receiving foundation trust status, the board of Mid Staffordshire NHS Foundation Trust had begun to hold its meetings in private, rather than in public. It had taken the freedoms, yet decided to become more secretive. That was fundamentally unacceptable, and I made that point loud and clear to the NHS when I received that report. I do not think that there is any difference between us on this. I believe in openness and transparency too. Ours was the Government who brought in the Freedom of Information Act and independent regulation for the NHS. On that matter, we can make common cause.

Several hon. Members: rose—

Andy Burnham: I want to make some progress, but I will give way again later.
	People have a right to know whether any of the recent pressure that we have seen in the NHS was predicted and made known to Ministers before they proceeded with their reorganisation, which has led to thousands of good, experienced, committed people leaving the NHS.
	It left in charge less experienced people, who had never seen an A and E winter crisis and who did not know what to do. It led to millions in large redundancy payments being handed to people who were then re-employed by a new NHS organisation. Overall, £3 billion was siphoned out of the NHS front line to pay for this upheaval. Managers got six-figure pay-offs, and 4,000 nurses got P45s. It is no wonder that morale among staff is at rock bottom.

Alun Cairns: rose—

Andy Burnham: I will give way to the hon. Gentleman, but I hope that his intervention will not be about Wales. [Interruption.]

Lindsay Hoyle: Order. I want to hear Mr Cairns.

Alun Cairns: Mr Deputy Speaker, I can assure you that my intervention will be about Wales, because it is about my constituents who are suffering. Will the right hon. Gentleman pay tribute to the transparency that the right hon. Member for Cynon Valley (Ann Clwyd) is seeking to enforce by exposing the different data that apply to Wales and England? Does he share my dismay that only 83% of patients who are admitted to A and E are admitted, treated and discharged in hospitals in Wales, compared with the 91% who are admitted, treated and discharged in hospitals in England? Why do my constituents have to wait 89 days, compared with the 51-day waiting time in England—

Lindsay Hoyle: Order. Mr Cairns, do not take advantage of the situation; it is not fair to other Members who also want to intervene. We want this debate to be heard in the best possible way.

Andy Burnham: This is debate is about the NHS in England, and if the hon. Gentleman has concerns about the NHS in Wales, why does he not have a word with his right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer and get a better deal for the Welsh Assembly so that a bit more money could be put back into the Welsh national health service?
	As I was saying, the Government have put staff morale at rock bottom, and where are the promised benefits of this reorganisation? Clinical commissioning groups are not, as we were promised, the powerhouse of the new NHS; they are embryonic at best and anonymous at worst. Members of all parties, I am sure, write letters to CCGs that get passed to NHS England, which then either does not provide a proper answer or passes them on again. [Interruption.] I hear the public health Minister saying it is dreadful that Members do not get proper answers. When my hon. Friend the Member for Easington (Grahame M. Morris) wrote to her about cancer services in his constituency, she also brushed it off to NHS England. Is this proper accountability? No.

Anna Soubry: rose—

Andy Burnham: I hope the Minister is going to deliver some accountability now.

Anna Soubry: Will the right hon. Gentleman please agree and accept that I have not only answered his letters, but met him on at least one occasion? It is right under the new system for such letters to go to NHS England, but that does not stop me making representations. We have introduced a much better system than we used to have under his Administration.

Andy Burnham: We have just heard it; this is what the NHS has been reduced to. The Minister has to make representations to NHS England about cancer services of all things. My goodness, if Ministers are not responsible for cancer services, what are they responsible for? Who is making the decisions and who is responsible for what? Even now, confusion reigns.
	What precisely is the role of the Secretary of State in this new world? He has cast himself in a new role as a detached commentator on the sidelines, magnifying all of the NHS’s failings and accepting none of the responsibility to fix them. I assume that that is all for NHS England, too. With the NHS already laid low by cuts and reorganisation, the Secretary of State has opened up a new front on staff: nurses repeatedly blamed for not caring enough; hospitals blamed for coasting, as I have said; GPs blamed for causing the A and E crisis. Everything is someone else’s fault.
	Then we get to this weekend. The Keogh report rightly exposed poor care standards, which should never be tolerated; we support action to tackle to them. The report, however, exposed something else, too—a Government who are now actively spinning against the NHS for which they are responsible, generating misleading or, in Sir Bruce’s words, “reckless” headlines about 14 already troubled hospitals. What chance do they have of improving when the man supposedly in charge is actively doing them down?

Derek Twigg: My right hon. Friend mentions the Keogh report and we are talking about the present day. Keogh says in the report that he found
	“frequent examples of inadequate numbers of nursing staff in some ward areas…The reported data did not provide a true picture of the numbers of staff actually working on the wards.”
	There we have it: it is this Government who are not making sure that our hospitals are properly staffed.

Andy Burnham: I am grateful to my hon. Friend and I will come to that precise point, as one would think that that was a responsibility of a Secretary of State. Who knows, though, what their responsibilities are now. Presumably that is a matter for NHS England as well. We shall return to the point in a few moments.

Penny Mordaunt: Will the right hon. Gentleman give way?

Andy Burnham: No, I want to make some more progress.
	As I said a moment ago, what chance do these hospitals have when they get these misleading headlines running them down when they are trying and struggling to make progress, alarming staff, alarming patients, demoralising staff and casually trading figures—[Interruption.] No. I will not give way. [Interruption.]

Lindsay Hoyle: Order. If the right hon. Member wants to give way, he will give way. We do not need people standing up, shouting and bawling. I want to hear what the shadow Secretary of State has to say, just as I want to hear what the Secretary of State has to say. Let us have a little more courtesy from everyone.

Andy Burnham: Thank you, Mr Deputy Speaker.
	Alarming patients, demoralising staff and casually trading figures about deaths in the pursuit of political advantage is no way to run the NHS, and those are not the actions of a responsible Government. Today people are asking what kind of Government this is, if they are willing to cause further damage to fragile hospitals for their own self-serving political ends. Yesterday the Secretary of State told the BBC that he had no idea who had put the 13,000 figure in the public domain. Does he seriously expect us to believe that?

Jeremy Hunt: Yes.

Andy Burnham: He seriously expects us to believe it? Why are we being told that those responsible were representatives of Conservative Central Office? [Interruption.] Yes, that is what is being said. The Secretary of State should go back and check his facts. If he does not have control of his advisers, it will not be the first time, will it? We have heard this before, have we not? “I do not know what the advisers are doing.”
	The “my adviser is out of control” defence may have worked for the Secretary of State once, but it will not work for him twice. He must take responsibility for his own advisers, and for the advisers at Conservative headquarters. We were told explicitly that that is where the briefings came from, and the Secretary of State owes the House a full answer. He owes it to the House to put that on the record. [Interruption.] I will not put the name in the public domain, but I have a name. I will send it to the Secretary of State immediately after the debate, and he must come straight back to me, having asked that person whether or not he briefed the press. If the Secretary of State agrees to that, let us leave it there. I have a name, and I will put it to him straight after the debate. He must take responsibility.

Kevan Jones: If there was no organised briefing over the weekend, there must have been a coming together of some extraordinary fiction. The Keogh report itself states:
	“It is important to understand that mortality in… NHS hospitals has been falling over the last decade: overall mortality has fallen by…30%”.
	Keogh says that that is an improvement, even given
	“the increasing complexity of patients being treated”.
	Those who read the headlines, and the spin from the Conservative party, would not think that our investment over 13 years had made any difference to mortality rates.

Andy Burnham: My hon. Friend has made an extremely important point. The conclusion to which he has referred may well have been missed by many people up and down the country yesterday, but it is worth repeating and putting centre stage in today’s debate, because the Government certainly will not make any reference to it.
	NHS hospitals in England, including the 14 covered by the review, have reduced mortality by 30% in recent years. That is an incredible achievement, which we should surely be celebrating. Of course the NHS is not perfect. It does fail people, and when it does, we are truly sorry for the effect on their families. The fact is, however, that the NHS and its hospitals have improved over the past decade, and that needs to be repeated and repeated to counter the scare stories that are emanating from the Conservatives and the fears that they are stoking among people about going into hospital.

Graham Stuart: I wonder whether the right hon. Gentleman is aware of the work of Professor Sheena Asthana, who has studied hospitals with higher mortality rates and found a correspondence between hospitals serving clinical commissioning groups—formerly primary care trusts—in areas with older populations which are receiving lower funding allocations than those with younger populations. She believes that funding allocations could be one of the causes of higher mortality across the system.

Andy Burnham: I would not close my mind to that suggestion, but I think it important also to take account of what Keogh said about other similarities between those hospitals—and, probably, between them and Mid Staffordshire. What they have in common is geographic isolation. Hospitals serving smaller market towns are not supported by the same clinical networks as others, and may find it more difficult to attract qualified staff. I agree with the hon. Gentleman that there are a number of important issues that need to be considered.

Kevin Barron: My right hon. Friend knows well, and knows personally, that in the past two months there has been a marked change in the coalition Government’s approach on the national health service. It started with the absurd argument that the problems in accident and emergency departments were the result of the 2004 GP contract. Is it not more likely that what is happening is that Mr Lynton Crosby is telling Government Members to squeeze the lead that Labour has had over the Conservative party for many decades on the NHS, and attacking NHS workers, scaring patients and attacking the Opposition is what they are trying to do? They ought to be ashamed of themselves for being involved in it.

Andy Burnham: It used to be, “We love the NHS”—the Prime Minister said, “I love the NHS”—but now it is about running down the NHS. I say to the Secretary of State, in all sincerity, that he will not improve patient care by continually blaming doctors and nurses. As I have said before, the NHS is fragile right now because of his reorganisation, and it cannot keep taking these knocks on a daily basis. The blame game is destructive and polarising, and it has to end. He is in real danger of losing any remaining good will in the NHS work force, and none of us and, more importantly, none of our constituents can afford to see those crucial staff become fed up, lose heart and walk away. Government Members can throw whatever they like at me, because that is politics, but I will not allow the NHS and its staff to become collateral damage in this orchestrated political campaign.

Penny Mordaunt: The right hon. Gentleman is making some important points about accountability, responsibility and the grip the Secretary of State should have on his Department. In that vein, can the right hon. Gentleman please tell the House how many of the 400 warnings about United Lincolnshire, 300 warnings about Blackpool and more than 200 warnings about Basildon went across his desk?

Andy Burnham: This is all part of the spin in which Government Members have been engaging in recent days. [Interruption.] Okay, so let me answer and then the same test will apply to the Secretary of State as the hon. Lady is applying to me. She is referring to letters sent by members of the public to the Department of Health. I am sure that this has not changed with the change of Government; contrary to what she has just said, those letters do not come across Ministers’ desks. They are not formal warnings to Ministers, and it is very important to be precise with language here. This Secretary of State will have received many, many hundreds of letters about hospitals up and down the country that he will not have seen, and it is not right for the hon. Lady to come along, again, with slurs and half truths to try to muddy the waters.

Charlie Elphicke: With respect, I do not think the right hon. Gentleman’s answer to my hon. Friend the Member for Portsmouth North (Penny Mordaunt) is good enough and convincing enough. We have heard too much about concern for hospitals and for hospital staff from the right hon. Gentleman, but not enough about concern for patients and for patient care.

Andy Burnham: If the hon. Gentleman was listening, I said just a few seconds ago that the Secretary of State will not improve care for patients if he continually blames nurses and doctors. It is not one or the other, although Government Members seem to think they can attack the health unions for somehow being the enemy of patients. Ordinary people do not see it that way. They know that the staff are there for them day in, day out. We support the staff to help the patients. If staff are rewarded properly and have good working conditions, they will provide better care to patients. These are not opposites; the two go together, and the Conservative party would do well to remember that.

Jim Cunningham: Some of us were here during the time of the previous Conservative Government, and I can remember that one of the hospitals in Coventry badly needed repair. After 1997, we got a new hospital. More importantly, one thing that Government Members always boast about is that they have increased the number of trainee doctors. It takes seven years to train a doctor. This Government are in their third year, so the credit goes to us.

Andy Burnham: As so often with the spin that we hear from Government Members, it is our achievements they are trying to claim credit for. I left behind the plans for the training of those doctors, but we do not hear much credit coming in this direction, do we? Government Members are happy to take the credit and then they try to cast off all the blame for everything else. My point is that criticism must be fair and made with care. We all
	have a duty to point out the failings of the NHS, in our own constituencies and nationally, and that is what I did when I did the Secretary of State’s job. However, we have to do that responsibly and fairly, especially for hospitals and those who manage them.
	Hospitals are not the architects of all the problems we read about. For example, they are all struggling with the fallout of severe cuts to social care budgets, the appalling cost of which I recently revealed: a 66% increase over two years in the number of over-90s coming into A and E via blue-light ambulance. In human terms, more than 100,000 very frail and frightened people have been speeding through the streets of our communities in the back of ambulances. Hospitals have to absorb that extra pressure and also struggle with longer delays in getting people back home. We are in real danger of asking too much of our hospitals by allowing them to be the last resort for people who would be better supported elsewhere. Without a greater understanding of that situation in the current debate, and if the trend towards the vilification of NHS managers continues, who will take on the job of running our acute trusts? Good people will walk away and no one will want to do the job. Again, the NHS simply cannot afford that.
	This crude blame game is an election strategy with two components: run down the NHS; and pin all the failings on the previous Government. The NHS cannot take 20 months of that until May 2015. It has been destabilised and demoralised already; if the Government are not careful, they will push it over the edge.
	The Secretary of State needs to change course and find a way of bringing people back together, so the purpose of the debate is to put forward two constructive proposals to manage risk in the NHS—one for now, the other for the long term. First, I turn to the immediate proposal. It is clear that the best way to draw a line under recent events and unify people would be for the House to embrace today the analysis and main recommendations of the Francis report. The motion highlights the three most significant recommendations: benchmarks on safe staffing; a duty of candour on individual NHS staff; and the regulation of health care assistants. If all parties endorsed those proposals, it would send staff a message of support and recognition of the pressure that they are under, while the patients who have suffered poor care would receive the positive message that the parties are working together to prevent that from happening to others.
	Given the tragic events that lie behind them, public inquiries should, when possible, produce consensus. It is extraordinary that, having commissioned a three-year public inquiry, the Government have slowly been distancing themselves from the Francis report’s analysis and conclusions ever since its publication. It is hard not to conclude that the report did not deliver what the Government wanted and that they have spent the past five months rewriting it. They have come up with their own recommendations on chief inspectors for hospitals, general practice and social care, yet dragged their feet on the actual recommendations. They have substituted the verdict of Francis on Ministers in the previous Government with that of the kangaroo court of Lynton Crosby. We do not oppose chief inspectors, but if the Government believe that ever-tougher central regulation
	will bring about the culture change locally that everyone agrees is necessary, they are mistaken. We need change that will have an immediate effect on the ground, and that will support staff and improve care for patients.

Barbara Keeley: My right hon. Friend has probably been in the Chamber on most of the occasions when I have raised the question of safe staffing with the Secretary of State. It was cited in the Francis and Keogh reviews, and the Care Quality Commission tells us that one in 10 hospitals has unsafe staffing levels. The Secretary of State dances around the issue again and again, but he will not take action. Yesterday, I asked him to introduce transparency to the process so that hospitals do not have wards with ratios of two staff to 29 patients, but he refused to answer my question. Does my right hon. Friend agree that if hospitals were transparent about their ratios, that would be the way forward, because we would know where we were?

Andy Burnham: The Keogh report exposes alarming ratios at my hon. Friend’s hospital and others. We have been warning the Government for months—years, in fact—about cuts to nursing numbers. It is neither right nor fair to criticise nurses for being uncaring when too many of them are unsupported and working in conditions in which they have to make compromises that they would rather avoid.
	Staffing emerged as the main concern arising from the Keogh report, but the problems go way beyond 14 trusts. The CQC says that one in 10 trusts in England does not have adequate staffing levels. Can we agree today that the staffing in all hospitals must urgently be brought back up to adequate levels, as defined by the commission, with clear benchmarks set for the future? [Interruption.] I am pleased if the Secretary of State is agreeing, because that represents progress, so I look forward to finding out how his plan will be delivered.

Andrew George: The right hon. Gentleman will remember that yesterday I drew attention to the fact that all but one of the 14 hospitals Keogh reviewed had staffing and skill mix issues that needed to be dealt with, but it would be quite wrong to suggest that that has happened only in recent years. Graham Pink drew attention to the problem in the early ’90s, and it also happened during Labour’s years in government. I think that it would be good for this debate if the right hon. Gentleman at least acknowledged that it has been going on for more than three years.

Andy Burnham: I will acknowledge that. A moment ago, I mentioned the Francis report, which I commissioned, which revealed the dangerous cuts to front-line staffing that the hospital pursued as the primary cause. I accept what the hon. Gentleman has just said. Rather than always pursuing central regulation as the solution, if local communities had identifiable benchmarks that they could use to check up on their local hospitals, surely that would be progress we could all get behind.
	On the duty of candour, the Government are legislating for a duty on organisations, but not on individuals. I think that we all agree that changing the culture of NHS organisations is essential if we are to move forward. The Francis recommendation is a necessary part of bringing about that culture change. Rather than being a
	threat to staff, as some have argued, it would protect them when they make known any concerns. Will the Government look at that again and legislate for the full Francis recommendation in the Care Bill? That is incredibly important in the light of yesterday’s report by Sir Bruce Keogh. He revealed—this will shock anyone who has not spotted it yet—that some trusts were telling members of staff what they could and could not say to his review. Surely we can all agree that is fundamentally unacceptable.

Jeremy Hunt: indicated assent.

Andy Burnham: I am glad that the Secretary of State nods. Does that not make the case, however, for a duty of candour on individuals, which would have allowed staff to say to management, “No, I’m going to speak to the Keogh review and I won’t face action afterwards because it is my duty to do so”?

Brian Binley: It is generally accepted that there were some serious management breakdowns. The Secretary of State at the time was the chief executive of the organisation. In my business, I would want to know what was happening. Does the right hon. Gentleman accept that he should have known what was happening?

Andy Burnham: I always took action when anything was brought to me. When mortality data on Basildon hospital were published, I immediately ordered an in-depth review of all hospitals in England, which led to warnings on five of the trusts on the Keogh list. Those warnings were inherited by the hon. Gentleman’s Government, but Ministers allowed those trusts to carry on cutting staff, and the same was true for the hospital in the constituency of my hon. Friend the Member for Denton and Reddish (Andrew Gwynne), even though it was subject to a warning about patient care. I think that Government Members have to look at themselves before making claims.
	On the duty of candour, the final recommendation that we need to see progress on relates to the regulation of health care assistants, which is long overdue. If the Secretary of State took these three sensible measures, he would provide support to staff and reassurance to the public, but they are not in themselves the answer to the structural challenge the NHS faces. That brings me to my final point on the longer-term solution. I have thought long and hard about what happened at Stafford hospital and why we hear recurrent echoes of the same elsewhere in the NHS, with older people lost on acute hospital wards, disorientated and dehydrated. I believe that the problem goes far deeper than any regulatory solution. Governments of all colours have underinvested in social care over many years, and in the end we get what we pay for: a malnourished, minimum wage system that dishes out care in 15-minute slots, which is barely time to make a cup of tea, let alone exchange a meaningful word.
	Looking after someone else’s parents should be the highest calling that any young person can answer. However, if we are honest with ourselves, the effect of decisions taken here in this House over many years means that the signal we are currently sending is that it is the lowest calling that a young person can answer. Some 307,000 care staff in England—20% of the work force—are on
	zero-hours contracts. That is an appalling figure. This situation cannot carry on. Good care cannot be provided on a zero-hours, here-today-gone-tomorrow basis.
	The collapse of decent social care in England means that too many elderly people are drifting unnecessarily towards hospital. Our hospitals are becoming increasingly full of very frail, very elderly people, and that is not sustainable in either human or financial terms. That is why I have proposed—

Jeremy Lefroy: I understand what the right hon. Gentleman is saying about the situation of care assistants—their low pay and so on—but in Stafford some of the highest-paid people in the organisation showed the least compassion. It is not all about money, although money may come into it. Compassion does not have any regard to income.

Andy Burnham: I agree with the hon. Gentleman, and I respect the way in which he continues to pursue the issues arising from what happened in his constituency. Yes, it is not all about money, but it is about the message we send to the people working in our care system. If somebody does not have certainty about the money that they will bring into the family home from one week to the next because they do not know how many hours they will be working, how can we expect them to pass on a sense of security to those they care for? We will not get the care that we all want for everybody’s parents if we carry on with a system that is working as it is. I lay the blame with no one Government; as I said, all Governments have brought this situation about.
	That is why I have proposed the full integration of health and social care with one service looking after the whole person and all their needs, physical, mental and social. I hear the Government increasingly borrowing our ideas and our language, and I have no objection to that. However, here is my challenge to the Minister of State, who has been roused by that statement: he cannot speak the language of integration while legislating for fragmentation and competition. We are hearing reports from across the country of sensible collaboration between secondary, primary and social care being blocked by the competition provisions of the Health and Social Care Act 2012. Torbay, the beacon of integrated care, fears that any qualified provider may break up its celebrated model. That has led the Minister to suggest in the Health Service Journal that his integrated care pilot area might be offered exemptions from the Act’s competition provisions. Surely that is the clearest admission from the Government that the Act they passed is a barrier to the change that the NHS needs. Collaboration or competition? Integration or fragmentation? In the end, they have to make a choice; they cannot have it both ways. If the Minister is serious about this, the last offer I make is that we will work with him to fast-track repeal of the competition provisions of the Health and Social Care Act.
	Today I have made some positive suggestions about a way forward for the NHS. It is now up to the Government to decide what they want to do. In the past few days, we have seen a glimpse of a Government prepared to run down the NHS, still the country’s best-loved institution, for their own political ends. If, from here on in, they intend to continue with that approach, they will be pursuing a very dangerous path. It will cement an
	impression in the country that some people have already formed—that the Secretary of State is running down the NHS to erode public confidence in it and to soften it up for privatisation. People suspect that that is the real agenda. Only today, we learned of six NHS trusts preparing for a major expansion in private work under privatisation freedoms given to them by this Government.
	Nye Bevan said that there will be an NHS for
	“as long as there are folk left with the faith to fight for it.”
	I can tell all Government Members that they have not knocked the fight out of me, and I suspect there are millions out there ready to rally to the same cause. People rely on an NHS that puts patients before profit, and Labour will always defend that. This week the Government have revealed their hand and it is nasty. They should pull back or get ready for the fight of their lives.

Jeremy Hunt: I beg to move an amendment, to leave out from “House” to the end of the Question and add:
	“welcomes the Government’s swift action in response to the Francis Report; notes the rapid establishment of reviews on key components of the Report’s findings, including the Cavendish review on healthcare assistants, the Clwyd-Hart review on complaints and the Berwick review on patient safety; further notes the drive to improve standards through the appointment of a Chief Inspector of Hospitals, the introduction of Ofsted-style ratings and the recruitment of specialist hospital inspectors; regrets the Opposition’s continued refusal to support these practical measures to expose and improve poor care; welcomes the watershed decision to expose and investigate 14 hospitals with high death rates through the recent Keogh review; further notes the Government’s decisive action to drive improvements in these hospitals by placing 11 hospitals in special measures; and applauds the Government’s wide-ranging efforts to introduce greater transparency and accountability in the NHS.”
	I am honoured to see you, Mr Speaker, in your place for my speech. The right hon. Member for Leigh (Andy Burnham) talked about yesterday, and I for one hope that he has had a chance to reflect on Labour’s shockingly inappropriate behaviour. Let me give him one fact to think about: on a day when a review described appalling failings at 14 hospitals, my speech mentioned patients 19 times—his mentioned them just twice. Does that not say it all about Labour’s attitude to the NHS?

Andy Burnham: I listened carefully to what the Health Secretary just said about our speeches. Does he think it appropriate for a Secretary of State introducing a report on mortality rates in the NHS to begin, within seconds of getting to his feet, by making political attacks on the previous Government? On reflection, was that the right thing to do?

Jeremy Hunt: It is funny how the Labour party decided to make the NHS its main campaigning issue for the past three years, yet the moment people start to scrutinise its own record on the NHS it says the NHS is being used as a political football. What does that say about Labour’s approach to the NHS?
	I want to consider the specifics of the motion before looking at the wider issue of risk. The motion mentions the Francis inquiry. One of this Government’s first acts
	on coming to power was to set up the full public inquiry into Mid Staffs that families had been denied by the right hon. Gentleman’s Government for too long. We are implementing it, and fast. That is why a new chief inspector of hospitals started work yesterday, just five months after the report was published.
	[
	Interruption.
	]
	The right hon. Gentleman says that a chief inspector of hospitals is not in the report, but how are we going to make sure that the report’s recommendations are implemented throughout all 266 NHS trusts? That will be done because we will have independent inspection of hospitals, which has not been done before because the situation was so undermined by the previous Government. That is how we are going to make sure that Francis actually happens.
	We intend to implement the spirit of everything that Robert Francis proposed, even if the details may vary in places from his 290 recommendations. Francis himself endorsed that approach when that he said that the Government have indicated their
	“determination to make positive changes to the culture of the NHS, in part by adopting some of my recommendations and in part through other initiatives.”
	Francis talked about five themes, so let us look at the progress being made on them. First, on information and transparency, yesterday showed that this Government are determined to root out, once and for all, an NHS culture of solving problems behind closed doors. This is about not just the decision to hold a public inquiry into Mid Staffs, which the right hon. Member for Leigh and his colleagues rejected doing 81 times, but the Keogh review, which reported yesterday that 14 hospital trusts have excess mortality rates. This is the first time the NHS has ever conducted such a review. We have also published individual surgeon outcomes—the first country in the world to do so across an entire health system. The independent rating of hospitals will start this autumn, so for the first time people will know how good their local hospital is, just as they do for their local school.
	Francis also mentioned standards. The new chief inspector of hospitals—a position that Labour still refuses to support—began work yesterday. In Professor Sir Mike Richards, we have a new whistleblower-in-chief whose sole job is to drive up standards and root out poor care. He will be supported by a team of expert inspectors, in stark contrast to the generalist inspection model set out by the right hon. Gentleman’s Government in 2009. That is plain common sense. We have put it right. The work of the inspectors will be informed by the independent review of hospital safety that is being conducted by Professor Don Berwick, who will advise on how to embed a culture of patient safety throughout the NHS. He will report back later this summer.

Derek Twigg: Yesterday, when I asked the Secretary of State whether mortality had fallen before 2010, his answer was:
	“According to Professor Jarman…it has been falling slightly.”—[Official Report, 16 July 2013; Vol. 566, c. 944.]
	The Keogh report states that it had fallen by 30% over 10 years. Figures from the House of Commons Library, which were sourced from the NHS, show that there has been a significant fall in deaths within 30 days of non-elective hospital procedures. Will he correct the record?

Jeremy Hunt: I am afraid that that intervention sums up where the spin is happening. The 14 hospitals were investigated by Professor Keogh because they had excess mortality rates. The Labour party thinks that that started in 2010, but it goes right back to 2005 in those hospitals and earlier than that in many of them. That is the ugly truth that Labour refuses to confront: 14 hospitals had high mortality rates for years and years, and Labour did nothing to sort it out.
	The Francis report—

Derek Twigg: Will the Secretary of State give way?

Jeremy Hunt: I am going to make some progress. The Francis report also talked about leadership.

Andy Burnham: Will the Secretary of State give way?

Jeremy Hunt: I will give way in a moment.
	The right hon. Member for Leigh talked about leadership. I want our NHS to attract the brightest and best leaders that this country has to offer. I have asked the NHS leadership academy to develop a new leadership programme to support clinicians to become clinical chief executives and to fast-track professionals from outside the NHS into leadership roles. We urgently need more talented managers in our NHS, and that will make a big difference.

Andrew Percy: I want to take my right hon. Friend back to the comments of the right hon. Member for Leigh, which I found shockingly complacent. I will give the example of Northern Lincolnshire and Goole Hospitals NHS Foundation Trust, which is one of those that is in special measures. Our mortality rates started to go up in 2007 and started to fall in 2011, but our nursing numbers have been increasing over that whole period. I find it shockingly complacent for somebody to suggest that there is not an issue or to downplay those figures. In my area, that has potentially cost hundreds of lives.

Jeremy Hunt: My hon. Friend makes an important point.
	I say to the shadow Secretary of State that it is a question not just of whether he responded to the warnings that he received, but of whether he received the warnings that he should have received in the first place because the inspection system might not have been up to scratch.

Andy Burnham: I mentioned a moment ago that when I saw the mortality data in late 2009, action was taken at Basildon and a review was ordered of all hospitals in England, so I did respond.
	The Secretary of State needs to correct for the record something that he said a moment ago. He implied that the mortality ratio had not come down at the 14 hospitals. If I have got him wrong, he needs to be clear about it. Yesterday, a group of Back-Bench MPs was informed by Sir Bruce that mortality ratios at the 14 hospitals had fallen since 2005 by between 30% and 50%, but that they were still above the average for England. Overall, the mortality rate is down at all hospitals, but the 14 hospitals have rates that are above the average. Will he correct that point because it is incredibly important?

Jeremy Hunt: Let me help the right hon. Gentleman out. Those 14 hospitals were investigated by Professor Keogh because they had excess mortality rates that go right the
	way back to 2005. Labour cannot be in denial. Professor Brian Jarman said that under Labour, there was “total denial” in the Department of Health over the issue of excess mortality—

Several hon. Members: rose—

Mr Speaker: Order. We must try to preserve some sense of order and decorum in this debate. The Secretary of State can be expected to answer only one intervention at once. It is unseemly and arguably discourteous of other Members to jump up and try to interrupt the Secretary of State when he is dealing with the previous intervention. Let us deal with that first. Members must show some sensitivity to that.

Jeremy Hunt: Thank you, Mr Speaker. Let me make some progress.
	On leadership, there has to be accountability for failed leadership through the introduction of a national barring list for unfit managers, similar to the one that we have for teachers.

Chris Kelly: The Dudley Group NHS Foundation Trust is one of the 14 trusts that were reviewed by Sir Bruce Keogh. Will my right hon. Friend confirm what changes this Government have made to provide central accounting in the NHS for compensation payments that were inherited from the Labour party, under which there were no financial consequences for unacceptably poor performance and weak leadership, such as that experienced in my constituency?

Jeremy Hunt: This is the appalling fact: we have inherited from the previous Government a system of compensation payments with no significant financial penalty on trusts that have to pay out litigation claims. The focus on patient safety, the biggest discipline of all that any trust should have to reduce patient safety incidents, should be the thought of having to pay compensation. That disincentive was removed. Absolutely, we will look at that.

Grahame Morris: Will the right hon. Gentleman give way?

Jeremy Hunt: I am going to make some progress and I will give way more later.
	Francis also talked about compassionate care. We are going to follow the advice of Camilla Cavendish’s study on training for health care assistants, so we can be sure that no one is giving basic care to our NHS patients without proper training on how to treat people with dignity and respect. We have also proposed that, subject to pilots that are starting in September, every student who wants to receive NHS funding for their nursing degree will first work for up to a year as a health care assistant, so that before they open the textbooks they learn real care and compassion at the coal face.

Andrew Smith: Will the right hon. Gentleman give way?

Jeremy Hunt: I am going to make some progress and then I will give way.
	In addition, in September the right hon. Member for Cynon Valley (Ann Clwyd) and Professor Tricia Hart will present their recommendations on how we can turn NHS complaints handling into an engine for improving compassionate care.
	The right hon. Member for Leigh mentioned nursing numbers. Getting the right number of staff on wards does matter, and where that is not happening for hospitals in special measures it will be sorted out. However, to suggest that that is the only issue, or indeed the main issue, is completely to misunderstand what has gone wrong. Eight of the 11 failing hospitals had increases in nurse numbers since 2010, but they still needed to go into special measures. Training, values, clinical safety and, above all, leadership are often as important.
	Labour has been calling for mandatory minimum staffing numbers. Let us look at what the experts say about that idea. Robert Francis said:
	“To lay down in a regulation, ‘Thou shalt have N number of nurses per patient’ is not the answer. The answer is, ‘How many patients do I need today in this ward to treat these patients?’”
	He also said:
	“The government was criticised for not implementing one, which it is said I recommended, which I didn’t.”

Cheryl Gillan: I am grateful to my right hon. Friend for giving way, because he knows that Buckinghamshire Healthcare NHS Trust was included in the statement yesterday. The trust welcomes his leadership and the opportunity to improve its performance, so that it can give the best possible care to patients in Buckinghamshire. Does my right hon. Friend agree that training goes to the heart of quality, particularly of agency staff? Would he like to say something about the competence, quality and checks that are made on agency staff, which will help to improve the health service across the country?

Jeremy Hunt: My right hon. Friend makes an important point. There are many locums who work extremely hard and are very committed. However, it is true that one feature of a number of the failing hospitals in yesterday’s report was that they had a high proportion of locum staff. It is harder to build up a sense of teamwork if there is a huge turnover in the people working in NHS organisations, and I know that many will reflect on that.

Liz Kendall: Will the right hon. Gentleman give way?

John Pugh: Will the right hon. Gentleman give way?

Jeremy Hunt: I will make some progress and then give way, because I want to come on to one of the main things that the right hon. Member for Leigh said, which was to criticise an NHS reorganisation that has put 8,000 more people on the frontline of the NHS.
	The right hon. Gentleman said that that reorganisation cost £3 billion, when he knows full well that the National Audit Office shows that it will be half that amount. It will save £5.5 billion in this Parliament alone. For the avoidance doubt, it is that £5.5 billion saving that means
	we are now employing 1,000 more health visitors, 1,400 more midwives and 5,600 more doctors than at the previous election.
	The right hon. Gentleman talked about the risk register. Let us look at what he said about publishing the risk register when he was Health Minister in 2007. These are his own words:
	“Putting the risk register in the public domain would be likely to reduce the detail and utility of its contents. This would inhibit the free and frank exchange of views about significant risks and their management, and inhibit the provision of advice to Ministers.”—[Official Report, 23 March 2007; Vol. 458, c. 1192W.]
	I agree with him.
	The right hon. Gentleman is right that pressures on A and E are building, so why does he oppose changing the GP contract to make primary care more accessible? Why does he criticise the extra £2 billion being put into joint commissioning by health and social care systems to reduce the number of delayed discharges? Why does he tell the NHS Confederation he supports the reconfiguration of services and then refuse to support every difficult reconfiguration, such as at Trafford or Lewisham?

Joan Ruddock: Is the Secretary of State aware that in the league table of the busiest A and Es in London, St Thomas’s, Queen Elizabeth and King’s occupy the second, fourth and sixth places? Does he really think there is no risk in moving tens of thousands of patients from Lewisham A and E to those three utterly overburdened and full-to-capacity hospitals?

Jeremy Hunt: I take the risks the right hon. Lady talks about very seriously, and we need to be very careful in managing any change, but there are also big risks in not making change. South London Health Care Trust is one of the worst-performing in the country, and it was used by her constituents. I have a duty to sort out these problems in the NHS, which have been left unsorted for many years.
	The right hon. Member for Leigh said we should look at our record since 2010. Let us look at that record: the numbers of people waiting longer than 18 weeks, 26 weeks and 52 weeks to start treatment are lower than at any time under the last Government; as I said, we have 5,600 more doctors; and we have a £650 million cancer drugs fund, giving more than 30,000 people access to cancer drugs—his Government refused to set up such a fund; the number of mixed-sex wards is down by 98%; and hospital infection rates have halved. These are real achievements for a service under great pressure, and we should recognise the hard work and dedication of the NHS staff who have delivered them.

Graham Stuart: My right hon. Friend will have heard me earlier referring to the work of Professor Sheena Asthana and will know of my concerns about the allocations underpinning some of the risks in the NHS. Will he agree to meet Professor Sheena Asthana and me, perhaps over the summer recess, to discuss the matter further?

Jeremy Hunt: I would be delighted to do so. I have studied her work and am an admirer of it, so I would be more than happy to meet my hon. Friend to discuss further the issues he wants to raise.
	I want to turn to the substance of the motion, which is about risk for the NHS. Two big risks face the NHS. They face not only the NHS, but all major health care systems. The first is financial sustainability and the second is an ageing population. The litmus test for the success of the NHS in the next 65 years will be whether it confronts those huge challenges while looking after people with dignity, compassion and respect. I believe that there are three pillars on which we must build to make that possible. The first is a radical transformation of out-of-hospital care. We know that a consultant is responsible for us when we are inside hospital, but who is responsible for a vulnerable older person when they leave hospital? Too often, their care falls between the cracks, with no one being accountable. The NHS could lead the world in this, but we have made it impossible for GPs to look after people proactively because of how the GP contract works. We need to change that, so that in an integrated, joined-up system of care, there is always an accountable clinician or named GP and the patient knows who it is. In the consultation on the changes to the NHS mandate for next year, therefore, I have asked NHS England to ensure a named clinician responsible for every vulnerable older person.
	The second of the three pillars we need to reduce risk in the NHS is technology. The technology revolution has transformed many other sectors, but has barely touched the NHS. A and E departments cannot access GP notes and so give medicine without knowing people’s medication history. Ambulances pick up the frail elderly without knowing whether they are diabetic or have dementia. This has to change. Technology can also cut costs. Retail banks have reduced their costs by a third, and we need those precious savings for the NHS, which is why I have said I want the NHS to go paperless by 2018 at the latest, with online prescriptions and booking of GP appointments by 2015. Technology is also a vital key to delivering integrated care, which is why data sharing will be a key condition of accessing the £3.8 billion joint health and social care fund announced by the Chancellor in the spending review.
	The final pillar to help the NHS cope with new risks is science. It might surprise hon. Members that I mention that today, but the UK has a long track record as a world leader in medical science. We were the first to unlock the secrets of DNA in 1953; we did the first combined heart, liver and lung transplant; we invented in vitro fertilisation, alongside many other advances, and we must play to those strengths. Science can transform our understanding of disease, and help us deliver truly personalised care. Our aim is by 2015 to put the UK at the forefront of the genome revolution worldwide, and I have set up Genomics England, led by Sir John Chisholm, to deliver that vision.
	In conclusion, the NHS faces many risks, but it also delivers many successes day in, day out. No organisation anywhere in the world has more staff dedicated to the noblest ambition anyone can have—to be there for us and our loved ones at our most vulnerable.

Andrew Smith: rose—

Jeremy Hunt: I am concluding now. We owe it to those people to tackle head-on the risks the NHS faces alongside health care systems in every other country. We do so with confidence and optimism that by confronting failure,
	nurturing excellence, and supporting the brilliant work of people on the front line, we will be able to deliver an NHS that remains the envy of the world.

Several hon. Members: rose—

Mr Speaker: Order. In the light of the number of right hon. and hon. Members seeking to contribute to the debate, I am forced to impose a six-minute limit on Back-Bench speeches with immediate effect.

Frank Dobson: I do not wish to get involved in great party turmoil on this matter, but it seems to me that a characteristic of any health care system is whether it is entirely devoted to managing risk. When people are ill or injured, their lives and health are at risk, and it is also possible that any treatment they may be offered will itself be risky.
	The principal problem faced by doctors, nurses and midwives is that of uncertainty, and they want to give the right diagnosis. It is statistically true, for example, that the average GP will be confronted by 1.5 patients who are suffering from meningitis in a 35-year career, yet we expect them to make the right diagnosis. It is difficult. If the GP has made the right diagnosis—I am not necessarily talking just about meningitis—we expect them to come up with the right treatment, which involves another judgment and a great deal of uncertainty. Even if the diagnosis and choice of treatment are right, it may be that the treatment will, for one reason or another, go wrong.
	Nevertheless, within the national health service, most people, most of the time and in most places, get very good treatment. Over the past 15 or 16 years, there has been a big reduction in mortality in hospitals, a big improvement in people’s recovery from treatment for a serious illness, and we have been catching up with some countries that had a better record than us. Despite all the criticism, general satisfaction with the national health service remains high. If people are asked what they think of the national health service, about 60% say it is pretty good. If they are asked how the NHS treated them or a member of their family, the percentage of those who are satisfied is usually in the high 80s or low 90s. Any political party or political leader would love that sort of satisfaction rating.
	People working in the NHS have very demanding jobs and they need help in doing those jobs. The first thing we must do is try not to make their lives more difficult than they are already. We should ensure, for instance, that they are not in a decrepit hospital without enough beds and that the equipment they have is reliable.

Kevan Jones: Does my right hon. Friend agree that one of the achievements of the previous Labour Government was the capital investment we put into hospitals? In 1997, for example, the hospital in my constituency was housed in the old workhouse, and we now have a brand-new hospital thanks to Labour. That has made a difference not just to patient care but to the working environment of the people we are asking to care for those patients.

Frank Dobson: That is certainly the case and applies to many parts of the country, including areas represented by Government Members.
	I do not think any hospital has had more money spent on it than University College hospital in my constituency, the rebuilding of which, I freely admit, was authorised when I was Secretary of State. I understand that it is the hospital in this country from which one is least likely to come out dead. It is a good place that has modern and reliable equipment and is not, generally speaking, short of staff. It is quite clear that staff shortages in parts of the country have endangered the standard of care provided.
	People’s pay and conditions are also important. The Cavendish report, produced only last week by a journalist for The Daily Telegraph, Ms Cavendish, stated that she regarded the pay and conditions of large numbers of people providing services outside hospitals to people who need them as disgraceful, shocking and a condemnation of our society. She is quite right.
	One thing concerns me most, however. I remember when I first became Secretary of State for Health being telephoned by a very good friend who was then a professor in the medical school at Nottingham and said—I shall have to bowdlerise this—“For Lord’s sake, leave us alone. Do not reorganise; do not distract people from their usual jobs.” That is what too many Governments have done, including this one, but I do not want to go ranting on about it.
	One thing I want to talk about is not mentioned very often. It became fashionable to say that the money must follow the patient and that we did not want to hand over big lumps of money to hospitals and other parts of the health service as that did not provide the right incentives. The only trouble is that as a result NHS transaction costs went up from 4p in the pound to what is estimated now to be between 12p to 15p in the pound. That is a lot of money—about £8 billion, £9 billion or £10 billion extra, just because of the new method of funding. If we want to release funds to help people who are being treated in the health service and who want to be treated there, to provide the buildings, equipment and staff, and to encourage the staff, we must think about the money being squandered on transaction costs. Unless we do something about that, it will only get worse under the new system.

Charlotte Leslie: The Opposition often say that we need to learn lessons—in many ways, I agree with them—and so I intend to go through some of the lessons we can learn. I note that on the 65th anniversary of the NHS, Labour made cupcakes saying, “We love the NHS”, which prompts an interesting question: do we love the NHS—the institution—or do we love, care for and want to protect the patients it serves and respect the professionals who work in it?
	I was also very perturbed yesterday by the venom in the denial of some—not all—Opposition Members. As I said then, it reminded me that Julie Bailey faced the same venom and aggressive denial in response to her mission to try to expose some of the truths at Mid Staffs. I am equally perturbed and disturbed that a lot of that venom is coming from two Labour party members locally, Diana Smith, who used to work for David
	Kidney, and Steve Walker. I would very much like to know whether the Labour party will formally condemn those actions.
	The shadow Secretary of State mentioned rewriting history, and I am also slightly concerned that there was a little bit of rewriting of history or confusion in that state of denial. I remind him that it was not him who commissioned Francis 2. He commissioned Francis 1, which was an inquiry of far more limited scope where evidence was given behind closed doors. He had every opportunity to commission Francis 2, and if he had done so the lessons he is now saying we must implement more quickly—and I appreciate speed is always of the essence—could have been implemented some time ago.

Andy Burnham: I would like just mildly to correct what the hon. Lady said. When I commissioned Francis 1, I said to Robert Francis that if he did not think he was receiving enough co-operation from witnesses in the first-stage inquiry and he came back to me wanting me to give him powers to compel, I would be glad to give him those powers. The second point the hon. Lady needs to bear in mind is that when he delivered his first report I told this House, in February 2010, that I would be commissioning a second stage report looking at the wider regulatory issues.

Charlotte Leslie: That is very encouraging to hear post-event, but unfortunately it still leaves some questions as to why the Cure the NHS group was not able to go along and formally deliver the case studies of Bella Bailey at the Department of Health but instead had to go and see the former Secretary of State outside his constituency office—and for those who want to deny yet more evidence, that is on YouTube.
	We have to ask why this review was not commissioned at the time if there were, through 81 requests, serious concerns raised. What did people have to hide? In 2009 the right hon. Member for Kingston upon Hull West and Hessle (Alan Johnson) said fairly clearly that Mid Staffs was a one-off, but unfortunately we know from the Labour “lines to take”—which are in the inquiry so are in the public domain—that Labour knew there were 12 hospitals with equal or even worse mortality rates. That was denied, but, tellingly, that brief says Labour should try to avoid naming them. That stands in stark contrast to the approach taken in the Keogh report, which has been transparent in naming those trusts where there are problems. Unlike Labour, I do not think being honest about the situation prevents improvement; actually, I think it helps improvement.

Charlie Elphicke: I congratulate my hon. Friend on making such a powerful speech. Does she agree that we have got to put patients first? If we put institutions first, and if we worry about staff and staff morale and how they might feel about things, we will inevitably slide in the direction of having a culture of sweeping things under the carpet and—dare I say it—covering things up. Unless we put patients first, we will not ensure there is a proper, sensible culture in our health service.

Charlotte Leslie: I absolutely agree with my hon. Friend. I would draw a distinction, however, as I think many members of staff in the NHS want, and wanted, nothing more than to put patients first. I was slightly
	surprised that only two Opposition Members mentioned patients and patient safety in their contributions yesterday. That was very upsetting.

Frank Dobson: In reference to the point the hon. Lady made to the previous intervention, does she agree with Professor Keogh—a most excellent man—that there is a strong correlation between the extent to which staff feel engaged and mortality rates, thus indicating that caring about staff is absolutely crucial if we are going to care about patients?

Charlotte Leslie: I absolutely agree, although there is a distinction to draw between managerial staff, who I think have been leant on heavily to make their hospital look good, and the ground-level staff, many of whom have been battling over the last decade to be able to put clinical priorities ahead of management and political priorities.

Grahame Morris: Will the hon. Lady give way?

Charlotte Leslie: I am going to make progress, if I may.
	I am surprised when many on the Opposition Front Bench talk about the welfare of staff, because one of the things Labour did that was so disastrous was take the medical royal colleges out of inspections. That happened after one hospital in particular was found to be lacking. Alan Milburn at the time—in the early 2000s—removed the medical royal colleges from the inspection regime, and did so perhaps, we have to ask, because they might come up with some very unpleasant truths. I am delighted that the Secretary of State is looking to reverse that decision in respect of those who know and will give Governments of all colours a good kicking if things go wrong.
	There has also been, unfortunately, a culture of cover-up—I would love to be proved wrong on this; there is still time, there is information that I am still seeking, and anyone can come to me with it—about the three reports that were commissioned on the 60th anniversary of the NHS. The right hon. Member for Leigh shakes his head but I would very much like to meet him to see whether he can show me the minutes of the meetings which he must have attended, at which these reports were discussed. [Interruption.] I will make progress while he talks at me from the Opposition Benches.
	It is ironic that on the 65th anniversary we have cupcakes. On the 60th anniversary there were three reports which warned, I remind Members, of a culture of fear and compliance—that sounds familiar; hitting the target and missing the point, which also sounds familiar; and inadequate regulation and inspection. Goodness me, doesn’t that sound familiar? The reports were exhumed only after freedom of information requests. I have put freedom of information requests to the Department of Health which, oddly, have been obstructed. I seek the help of the Secretary of State and of the shadow Secretary of State, if he would like to set the record straight, in seeking information. Who was present at those meetings where those reports, which cost the taxpayer £500,000, were discussed? They were by international experts, including Don Berwick, whom we are now putting at the centre of our NHS on the zero-harm strategy.

Grahame Morris: Will the hon. Lady give way?

Charlotte Leslie: I am terribly sorry. I will make progress.
	I would also like to set the record straight on who knew what about hospital trusts. The right hon. Member for Leigh says that he took astute action. He knows, because I have the e-mails, as he does, that he was written to by Professor Sir Brian Jarman about 25 trusts about which he had concerns. He said he was concerned that the CQC was not doing its job. Seven of those were investigated by Sir Bruce Keogh. Fifteen of those trusts were in marginal seats and one, as he will know, was in the constituency of the right hon. Member for Leigh.

Andy Burnham: That list, when Brian Jarman gave it to me, was immediately referred to the CQC. Within weeks, six of the trusts, I think, on that list were registered with conditions before the general election.

Charlotte Leslie: The fact that the very same trusts appear in the Keogh report and have not resolved their problems proves that we have suffered a legacy issue. Those reports are still relevant.
	The then Secretary of State referred those trusts to the CQC, which we now know he was leaning heavily on. We know that people were saying that the aim of the CQC’s operation was that no bad news should come out. The lessons that we need to learn about how to avert risk and to care for patients is to return to the specialist, honest medical analysis and inspection of hospitals that will give all Governments some uncomfortable truths. This party wants to hear uncomfortable truths. We do not want to smother them.
	Labour has presided over a culture of bullying, threatening and aggressive denial, which we sometimes see in the Chamber. We will not be bullied now. The truth is out. Finally, patients and professionals struggling to care for those patients will not be stifled under a saccharine sickly-sweet cupcake icing which says, “We love the NHS”. We have seen in so many tragic cases that that love has been lethal.

Derek Twigg: No one would disagree that if there are problems with standards or care in any hospital or any part of the health service every effort should be made to bear down on those problems and deal with them, whether that is by supporting the leaders or clinicians who are responsible for it, or removing them, if necessary. We must bear down on problems and continue to improve standards. Everybody wants to see that. When we are trying to build on the improvements of the Labour Government, it does not help to undertake at the same time a reckless reorganisation of the NHS, which has taken a massive amount of time and effort, cost at least £3 billion and opened the door to privatisation. That has caused chaos in the health service.
	I talk to staff and managers regularly. There is massive pressure on them. They feel completely uncared for. They feel that no one is bothered. They are told to do things for which they do not have staffing. They have to maintain standards, which is very difficult because of shortages of staff and because of the pressures on them.

Andrew Smith: Among the many other dangers of privatisation, is not one particularly relevant to the debate today the fact that transparency will be lost because of private commercial organisations’ unwillingness to share information and be transparent?

Derek Twigg: My right hon. Friend makes an important point. That is one of the things that we explored during the Committee stage of the Health and Social Care Bill and of course we got no answers. The then Minister, now Minister of State, Department for Transport, the right hon. Member for Chelmsford (Mr Burns), said that as time goes on the NHS will be more open to the competition laws of both the EU and the UK. That is the real story here, and we will not have that transparency. That is a major part of the problem we are having to deal with.
	No matter what statistics we are talking about, losing a friend or loved one is a massive human tragedy that affects everybody. We want to do all we can to reduce the number of early and preventable deaths—that is absolutely right—and put patients’ interests and those of families first. Given what we have heard in the last day or so, one would think that we somehow left an NHS in crisis—an NHS that was not delivering—yet when we left office it had the highest satisfaction rate in history. We had the lowest waiting lists in history and massive reductions in early deaths from cancer, coronary problems and so on. We also saw massive increases in doctors and nurses. We hear this Government talking about increasing the number of doctors, but when did those doctors start their training? They started under Labour.
	To give an example, so that we can be a bit fairer about the situation, the Commonwealth Fund produced an international health policy survey in 2010 that looked at 11 countries—and guess what? The UK health service came out best. Just as an example, when those on above average incomes and those on below average incomes were asked whether they were confident that they would receive the most effective treatment if sick, the best results—95% and 92%—were in the UK. That was an international survey. Another question was whether people were confident that they would receive the most effective treatment if sick—and guess what again? The UK came out on top, at 92%. That is the real picture of the NHS that we left behind in 2010—although it was not without its problems and challenges, because pressures were always building up.
	I also noticed that pages 4 to 5 of the Keogh report say—this is an important comment that has not been looked at much in the press—the following:
	“Between 2000 and 2008, the NHS was rightly focused on rebuilding capacity and improving access after decades of neglect. The key issue was not whether people were dying in our hospitals avoidably, but that they were dying whilst waiting for treatment.”
	That is where Labour made one of the biggest differences. I remember regularly having people write to me back in the late 1990s and the early 2000s about having to wait over two years for an operation. People were literally dying because of that. Addressing that was one of the biggest gains that Labour made.
	The Secretary of State has now left the Chamber, but earlier I raised with him the issue of mortality. He refused to correct the record. He said that there had been a “slight” improvement by 2010, yet Professor
	Keogh talks about a 30% improvement in mortality in all hospitals, including those that have been under investigation. That is not to say that those hospitals should not be doing better, but he was talking about all hospitals.

Andrew Gwynne: Professor Keogh’s report also shows that although mortality has dropped by 30% in all hospitals, it has dropped by between 30% and 50% in the 14 hospitals subject to the Keogh review. Although those hospitals are still outliers, the drop has been greater at those 14 hospitals.

Derek Twigg: My hon. Friend makes a strong and important point. I referred earlier to figures from the Library, but those figures are from the NHS. Just to repeat, the rate of deaths per 100,000 within 30 days of a non-elective hospital procedure in England was 4,850 in 2001-02 and 3,684 in 2010-11. That is a significant drop, so I hope the Secretary of State will correct the record, change his view that there was a “slight” improvement and confirm that was a significant improvement, because that is what the evidence from his own Department says. Why is that important? It is important for a number of reasons. It is important to see improvements, but we should also bear in mind that the fall from 2001 took place against a massive increase—4 million additional admissions—in the number of people admitted to hospital. It is also important because people want to see continual improvements and be assured that their relatives and friends are receiving the best possible treatment.
	In the short time I have available, I want to talk about a couple of local issues. Staffing plays a fundamental part in regard to risk. Many hospitals are having real difficulty with staffing at the moment, and many more will do so. I will say more about that in the context of my own hospital in a second. We need to address the problem, and the mix of staff is also a factor.
	The Warrington and Halton Hospitals NHS Foundation Trust serves my constituency. We have been told by the chief executive and the chair of the board of governors that our hospital will run out of money in about 18 months’ time. It has already had to make savings in staff numbers of about 200, and implement a £7 million cut. The hospital will be unsustainable in that situation. What are the Government going to do about that? It is a foundation trust, and as far as I am aware, there are no significant performance issues. I get complaints about the different hospitals, but it is no worse than any of the others. It will run out of money, however.
	My hon. Friend the Member for St Helens North (Mr Watts) has mentioned the St Helens and Knowsley NHS Trust. The Whiston hospital was rebuilt under Labour’s plan to rebuild hospitals. We replaced Victorian hospitals—and workhouses, as in the case of the Whiston—with more than 100 new hospitals. The deal on the Whiston hospital under Labour involved a private finance initiative, with the difference being paid for by the two primary care trusts. This Government have got rid of the PCTs, but they have still not put in place a way of funding the hospital on a long-term basis. The uncertainty continues, despite debates on the matter in this place and meetings with Ministers, and we still do not know what is going to happen. It is an excellent hospital with brand-new facilities, but it is facing a real
	challenge. We need the Government to make decisions about hospital funding, to ensure that it and others can continue; otherwise, many more hospitals will get into difficulty.

John Pugh: This debate is notionally about managing risk in the NHS, but it is actually about reputational risk for Secretaries of State. I genuinely feel sorry for all Secretaries of State, because it is very unlikely that nothing will go wrong on their watch. It is unlikely that the entire NHS will perform optimally, that there will be no significant variation in performance and that the NHS will deliver an absolutely perfect service.
	Secretaries of State have to get a whole raft of things right. They have to get the funding, the appointments, the regulation and the legislative framework right, and when something goes wrong, they have to get the troubleshooting right as well. They also have to keep a whole raft of health professionals happy, including pharmacists, dentists, GPs, nurses, midwives and health visitors, as well as patients from the age of nought to 90. Surveying that task, I think we have to agree that it is mission impossible.
	The two things that will afford a Secretary of State the most protection are, first, good regulation and inspection, and secondly, the professional commitment, engagement and dedication of health professionals including doctors, nurses, ambulance staff and, dare I say, managers—or, as they are they are sometimes referred to in this place, bureaucrats. I think we all acknowledge the need for good management in the NHS.
	We have been appallingly badly served by the regulators. Let us take the Care Quality Commission—where do I begin? And what about Monitor? Yesterday, we had the statement on the Keogh report. Before that, we have had statements on Mid Staffs and Morecambe Bay. Although not many people have acknowledged it yet, the majority of the hospitals involved are foundation trusts, and were inspected by Monitor. The majority were given a positive, green risk rating in 2010. What does that tell us about foundation trust status and its benefits? What does it tell us about Monitor, and the CQC, as regulators? Bizarrely, we seem to have given those bodies, which do not seem to be wholly competent, an increased role in the health service over the past couple of years.
	The only other protection from serious embarrassment that is available to a Secretary of State is the fact that the NHS survives most things. There is a huge amount of professional commitment from NHS staff. Ironically, however, that can be undone by unwise, poor, tick-box, target-chasing and clinically unjustified regulation. That applies across the NHS and, I would suggest, across public services as a whole. Regulation and inspection, if ill-advised, can undermine professional standards, with disastrous effects for individuals and institutions. Certainly, those who know anything about Ofsted will know that Ofsted can do that, and I am sure that the CQC has done it. The Government have also done it through distorting priorities or simply by inspecting the wrong thing. The truth is that we need to work more with the grain of professional judgment, to listen to it more and not assume that it is always a self-serving producer interest. We can encourage the best and challenge the worst, without disparaging professional ethics.
	Recently, the Government have got themselves into a sort of enviable no-lose situation with regard to the public services. If policies are supported by professionals, it proves that the Government are right. If on the other hand policies are opposed by professionals, it proves that the Government are challenging the provider interest and are right again—so they can never be proved wrong. My simple point—it is the only one I really want to make—is that if Governments were not always so easily persuaded that they were right, we would get a whole lot less wrong.

Ann Clwyd: As on six previous occasions, I shall read from testimony showing a lack of care and compassion from the 2,500 people who sent letters and e-mails to me.
	The family of an 89-year-old patient wrote:
	“During our daily visits, we had to locate a cup from the kitchen on the ward in order to give her some fluid. She never had a drink of any sort within reach. This resulted in severe dehydration, which was apparent by her sunken eyes, dry, scaly skin, fatigue and her unquenchable thirst when we provided her with drinks. The staff informed us that she was not eating but we found she would eat any food we brought in for her. Whilst in bed the staff neglected to move her on a regular basis and this resulted in circulatory problems and ultimately necrosis of both feet. She also developed many infections…the wound on one heel was so advanced that the bone was visible.”
	A man whose son suffered further brain damage due to lack of care said:
	“He was left lying in his own urine, faeces, etc. He was left without fluids for over 12 hours then he had a huge seizure. The doctor would turn up at 5 o’clock stating ‘What’s the plan for today?’ when the day was clearly over…I witnessed nurses allowing drugs and feed to go to the floor…the floor was in such a state my feet were sticking to it. You can’t blame the cleaners for MRSA!”
	A woman writes about her father’s death in hospital:
	“I used the term ‘conveyer belt to death’ at the time we lost our beloved dad. On that chaotic Friday afternoon, when all the Consultants and senior staff are dashing off for an early week end finish, a poor young doctor was pushed into our path by one of these Consultants from the palliative team and uttered the immortal words that will stay with me—“Is Tuesday OK?”…I only twigged later that night that that was the date to cancel any care and pull the plug.”
	A woman writes of her father’s experience in hospital:
	“I’ve tried to find out what he’s eating and how much but no one seems to know and the nursing staff just tell me they have too many plates to clear to remember who was eating what. My Dad is wasting away in front of my eyes and they just keep telling me they’re too busy to help. My Dad is 76 and he has always been fit and well but I’m fearful now that he will never come home from hospital alive.”
	Another woman wrote:
	“Having continually pushed for the best care available during his time there, it seemed that complaining wouldn’t make any difference, other than making me relive every humiliation, discomfort, stupidity and indifference…My father spent a month in hospital, and he said it was worse than his experiences in the Second World War…We watched one man fading away, naked apart from a soiled nappy, in full view of visiting families.”
	The wife of a whistleblower wrote:
	“My husband was a senior nurse who recorded what he considered to be gross ill treatment of patients to his senior Consultant…he was subjected to prolonged bullying campaigns and subjected to pseudo disciplinary procedures. He was supported by the RCN who managed to keep him in his job…To cut a long story short,
	after six years of abuse, stress and fear my husband suffered a major stroke while working at the hospital. He was later subjected to a vicious attack”
	by the management
	“at his back to work interview. He retired from the NHS on medical grounds. He was 46 years old. He lost the job he loved. The NHS lost a highly skilled super intelligent practical nurse who loved his patients and worked hard for them. His colleague who supported him lasted a bit longer but was also forced into retirement after her health was destroyed by bullying because she also witnessed and reported the abuse of patients”.

Jim Shannon: The right hon. Lady is telling us some very compassionate and emotional stories. Does she feel that the voice of families, which she has illustrated very well, needs to be heard more by management and staff, and does she feel that the process should be improved to enable that to happen?

Ann Clwyd: Many people are afraid to complain. Some complain many years later, and some never do so at all. It must be made easier for people to complain.

Glyn Davies: I was reluctant to intervene when the right hon. Lady was giving all those examples, but this seems to be a natural break. I share her huge concern about end-of-life care in hospitals, and she may share my concern about the Government’s announcement this week that the Liverpool care pathway will end this year. I hope that the Government are clear about what will replace it, and that we do not end up with confusion about responsibilities in hospitals, which could lead to less dignity and care as people reach the end of their lives.

Ann Clwyd: I thank the hon. Gentleman for making that point. My next piece of testimony comes from a man who wrote this about his mother’s death in hospital:
	“'My mother died under unspeakable conditions. The treatment she received, being deliberately dehydrated to death, on the so called ‘Pathway’, and total lack of sedation resulted in a death of anxiety, pain and total lack of dignity, which I personally witnessed.
	The callous attitude of the staff beggared belief. My mother suffered incredible levels of neglect and abuse. We initiated a complaint, resulting in several distressing meetings. The whole procedure was to no avail as we only received platitudes of regret resulting in written statements of denial of any lack of patient care”.
	Another man wrote:
	“I left my wife with the assurance from nursing staff that she would be given a bath. I found her the next day some 15 hours later in her own excreta and vomit. Her face had been wiped clean. Nothing else. I was told the hoist was not working and that the bath was not plumbed in, and, in any event, nursing staff did not have the time to bathe her. Having found the equipment in perfect working order I bathed her.
	I was caring for a fragile lady. I couldn’t make a complaint, I was frightened because my complaining would upset her and more uncomfortably, I had no trust in the nursing staff. Complain and how much worse could the callousness be? I took her home saying nothing. I'm still ashamed”.
	Another man wrote this about his treatment for a punctured lung:
	“My drip was not changed for six days, my chest hair that was shaved was left to fall under my bed and not cleaned up properly. I was never washed and in the end went by myself to the shower past the nurses station pulling my drip trolley—no one helped or
	worse enquired what I was doing. Water was taken away very early in the morning and not returned for at least two hours although there was obvious chatter coming from the nurses station”.
	All the testimonies that I have read out come from Wales.

Phillip Lee: The title of the debate, “Managing risk in the NHS”, is very important. Indeed—although this may not be a topic for today—we ought to start thinking about the whole concept of risk and what patients will accept in terms of risk, especially given that everyone now has access to information via the internet. Invariably, the first thing someone puts into Google is the thing they are least likely to be suffering from as a consequence of the symptoms they are experiencing, so it is extremely important that risk is discussed much more with the patient population. As the right hon. Member for Holborn and St Pancras (Frank Dobson) said, it is extremely difficult to be a GP and to try to manage the demands being placed on the health service when people are coming in thinking that their headache is a brain tumour and so on.
	It is particularly appropriate that I am speaking in this debate, because today the Care Quality Commission has published a report on Heatherwood and Wexham Park Hospitals NHS Foundation Trust. I am surprised that the hon. Member for Slough (Fiona Mactaggart) has not taken the opportunity to speak in this debate as a consequence. The report highlights significant concerns about the trust and the care of patients. None of the concerns was news to me: I approached the then Health Secretary about them in June 2010; I spoke to Monitor, whose chief executive told me, remarkably, that he had no concerns whatsoever and nothing had come across his radar about the trust; and I also spoke to Cynthia Bower in September 2010 about them. I say that because Monitor and the CQC were clearly not fit for purpose and doing their job of finding out what was wrong with hospitals.
	I recognise the current Secretary of State’s desire to have a chief inspector of hospitals, and I wholeheartedly support him on that concept. However, I counsel colleagues on both sides of the House that if we start looking properly at the performance of hospitals, we will, judging by the list of experiences that the right hon. Member for Cynon Valley (Ann Clwyd) has just shared with the Chamber, have plenty more stories to deal with about hospitals, and how they fail or are failing.
	I wish to concentrate primarily on legacy and the genesis of these problems, which probably blight both parties. A hospital does not suddenly become a problem in the space of a couple of years; that can occur over a number of decades. The problem we have in this country is that a large number of our hospitals are not fit for purpose. There is a legacy of poor location, not only because the land was often bequeathed, but because the buildings are often not fit for purpose. That is the particular problem at Heatherwood, and with its theatres, as was highlighted in the CQC report.
	There is also a legacy in respect of the district general hospitals in general. They have had their day and we do not need them any more; we need regional specialist hub hospitals such as the one I have been proposing for the Thames valley for the past three to four years. I say
	that because if we are trying to provide care, it is incredibly difficult to mitigate risk when the theatre is not fit for purpose or when the hospital cannot be staffed appropriately. Labour Members have made much mention of nursing numbers, but the issue is much bigger than that; it is about the quality of the clinicians. Most clinicians have to specialise and sub-specialise, and the only way in which we will be able to provide the very best care in the 21st century is by having fewer acute hospitals. All the royal colleges share that opinion; I am not cornering that market. The flip side, however, is that we will have more community hospitals and more community care, which can only be a good thing.
	If I were allowed to advise Members, I would tell them to be cautious on the issue of end-of-life care, because it will be extremely difficult to provide that in an increasingly ageing society. We are going to have some very difficult decisions to make for people in their 90s and for people over 100. There is no easy solution to this. The Liverpool care pathway was probably an honourable approach to try to take. I am not saying that it was perfect, but there was a desire to do the right thing in its implementation.
	The reconfiguration is necessary and, for it to be appropriate, it will need cross-party support. We are not going to get anywhere by trading insults and taking political positions over various hospitals. Quite a few hospitals are not fit for purpose, with some in Conservative seats, some in Labour seats and some in marginal seats. If those of us who are interested in this topic truly want to improve care for all, we really need to remove party politics from the reconfiguration debate and engage in a cross-party discussion about where these hospitals should be. If we did that, if we managed to build some new hospitals—I suspect that we will have to build quite a few, because, as I said, the problem with a number of established hospitals is that their locations are inappropriate, as is certainly the case in my part of the world—and if we could come to a consensus and some agreement on this, we would be bequeathing to future generations a hospitals sector to be proud of. We do not have one to be proud of, however. We heard that mortality rates have been going down, but of course that is the case, because we are getting better at medicine, but with that come challenges regarding the end of life.

Charlotte Leslie: Does my hon. Friend have any information about how Britain’s reducing mortality rate compares with that of comparable European countries?

Phillip Lee: I do not have such information to hand, but it would be interesting to compare our mortality rates for various conditions with those of Germany, Holland and France over the past seven to 10 years to determine whether there has also been a decline in those countries. It is difficult to claim that it was just the investment of money that led to reduced mortality rates in this country. I do not rule out the fact that the investment was a factor, but I suspect that the decline was due to advances in medicine and technology, and indeed in the skill base of consultants.
	If we reconfigure, consultants will have a larger throughput of patients. It is interesting to note that Tameside covers about 175,000 patients—not enough—that Basildon and Thurrock covers about 300,000 or so, and that Mid Staffs covers about 225,000. Hospitals should
	cover a minimum of 500,000 people, if not 750,000, if they are truly to deliver the best acute and surgical care. The staff, especially the consultants, will want such a throughput of patients so that they can maintain and enhance their skills, and thereby improve mortality statistics. I therefore conclude by begging the Government and the Opposition to take the party politics out reconfiguration so that we can secure a hospital sector of which we can be proud for the next five decades.

Valerie Vaz: It is always a pleasure to follow the hon. Member for Bracknell (Dr Lee). I do not think that hon. Members have had a chance properly to mention that the NHS is 65 years old.
	We now have two figureheads atop the NHS: the Secretary of State and the chief executive of NHS England. Hon. Members might have missed the change of name from the NHS Commissioning Board to NHS England. Such is the power of the chief executive that he neither had to come to Parliament nor to deal with elected representatives to achieve that. The two of them sit there like Laurel and Hardy, whose catchphrase was, “Here’s another fine mess you’ve gotten me into.” We know there is a mess, as there is a host of ongoing reviews.
	Let me start by referring to the Francis report, which was produced by a leading QC who started his work in 2009 after being picked by my right hon. Friend the Member for Leigh (Andy Burnham), so that was something he got right. Some £10 million later, after sifting the evidence and hearing bereaved people give their testimony, Robert Francis produced a report with 290 recommendations. At the time, it appeared that they had been accepted in full, but all is not as it seems, because apparently there needs to be a review on its implementation.
	Yesterday, we received Sir Bruce Keogh’s thoughtful review. It is actually a model report, as it gives clarity on what needs to be done. The Secretary of State mentioned Don Berwick’s report on the Francis review, which is due in the autumn. Camilla Cavendish has reported on health care and social care assistants. My right hon. Friend the Member for Cynon Valley (Ann Clwyd) and Tricia Hart will review how patients make complaints, although no date has been given for when that will report. Sir Bruce Keogh is busy again, as he is producing a further report on a plan for vulnerable older people, which I think is also due in the autumn.
	You would be forgiven for thinking that that was the end of it, Mr Speaker, but that is not quite the case. The chief executive of NHS England announced to the Health Service Journal—not to the Secretary of State nor to Parliament—that he would do some work to determine what NHS England’s strategic direction might be. One would have thought that he would already know, and the process seems somewhat late given when the body was set up. He told me that the cost would be £3 million over three years, but how many doctors and nurses would that buy?
	What has been the response of the Secretary of State to date? Urgent care boards and chief inspectors—PR and an extra layer of bureaucracy. The Health Committee heard evidence that urgent care boards were the management that was removed by what happened to the strategic health authorities. What are the costs? The Treasury has already clawed back £3 billion from the
	NHS. According to the National Audit Office, the efficiency gains of £5.8 billion that were made in the first year were a result of reducing the tariff to providers and the public sector pay freeze, but how long can that carry on?
	The NAO has published interesting statistics following the passage of the Health and Social Care Act 2012. The reported cost of the reforms was £1.1 billion. The Secretary of State told the Health Committee that he had seen—he did not know—a figure of between £1.5 billion and £1.6 billion. Professor Kieran Walshe has put the figure at £3 billion.
	The NAO said that of the 170 organisations closed down, 240 have been opened, and 10,094 full-time equivalent staff have been made redundant. It is a shame, when there is an underspend of £3 billion, that the College of Emergency Medicine is crying out for extra emergency doctors and consultants, and at least half a million pounds is spent on locums in A and E, and all before we have even looked at integration.
	Many have endorsed what is rapidly becoming known as the Burnham plan, including the right hon. Member for Charnwood (Mr Dorrell). The Health Committee has seen the work at Torbay, which was piloted in 2004-05—by the previous Government, incidentally—but we were told that the Health and Social Care Act could affect the way it works.
	I want to ask the Secretary of State to do something fairly useful: ask someone at the Department of Health to pull together and publicise best practice from across the country. The Health Committee heard evidence that some of the A and E hospitals had got it right by moving elderly people directly to consultant geriatricians.
	Finally, it is very easy for those of us who are exposed to the world of NHS structures to say how we can fix it, but Robert Francis took evidence from those who use the service directly on how they came across the inaction and indifference of a large institution. Sir Bruce Keogh has done the same with his report. They talked directly to those on the front line and those who use the service, not just those in the boardroom. They are the ones who should be listened to—all those who work in the NHS and have to provide a service when their pay is frozen. The people who use our NHS want professional people who are competent at their job caring for them when they are at their most vulnerable. Only if we listen to them will we be able to wish the NHS many happy returns in future.

Liz Kendall: It is a pleasure to follow my hon. Friend the Member for Walsall South (Valerie Vaz) in this important debate. As my right hon. Friend the Member for Holborn and St Pancras (Frank Dobson) and my hon. Friend the Member for Halton (Derek Twigg) said, over the past three years the biggest risk to NHS patients and taxpayers has been this Government’s decision to force through the largest back-room reorganisation in the NHS’s history at the same time it faces the biggest financial challenge of its life.
	We left government with the lowest ever waiting lists and the highest ever patient satisfaction, but we knew that further changes were essential to improving the
	safety and quality of patient care and getting better value for taxpayers’ money. And we had a plan to make it happen in every region in England, through Lord Darzi’s report, “High Quality Care for all”, which set out precisely how we would achieve the kind of reconfigurations of hospitals that the hon. Member for Bracknell (Dr Lee) mentioned and precisely the kind of integrated services focused on prevention in the community mentioned by my right hon. Friend the Member for Leigh (Andy Burnham) and my hon. Friend the Member for Walsall South. But Ministers scrapped those plans and instead forced through a top-down reorganisation that not only wasted billions of pounds, but meant that local services lost grip and focus precisely when they were needed most.
	The Government were repeatedly warned about the risks of their Health and Social Care Bill. While they have refused to publish their own national risk register, up and down the country local NHS organisations did the job for them. Those local NHS risk registers warned that front-line staff would be cut. They were right: over 4,000 nursing posts have been lost under this Government. They warned that specialist cancer networks would be scrapped, and they have, along with Labour’s stroke networks, both of which were vital to improving the quality of patient care. The local risk registers also warned that structural upheaval and fewer front-line staff would destabilise winter planning and mean more patients waiting longer in A and E. That is precisely what has happened.
	This Government have presided over the worst A and E crisis in a decade. At its height, 100 trusts failed to meet the four-hour A and E target. Even during spring, more than half of all hospital trusts missed the target. The risk to patients is not just that they have been left waiting for hours in distress and pain on trolleys or in the back of ambulances. As Sir Bruce Keogh’s excellent review states,
	“over 90% of deaths in hospital happen when patients are admitted in an emergency rather than for a planned procedure”.
	He goes on to say:
	“The performance of the majority of the trusts was much worse than expected for their emergency patients.”
	He is right. At the end of last year all 14 of those trusts were missing this Government’s lower A and E target, yet under the previous Government all 14 were meeting our higher A and E target.
	Instead of getting to grips with the real causes of the A and E crisis so that they can deliver real solutions for patients, the Government have consistently sought to score political points by blaming the 2004 GP contract. [Interruption.] The Secretary of State says from a sedentary position that that is what the evidence says. Well, NHS England, the NHS Alliance and the NHS Confederation beg to disagree, to name just a few. They say that the real causes are primarily that more very elderly, sick patients are ending up in hospital and getting stuck there because of pressures on social care budgets, and that there are not enough services for specific groups of patients such as those with mental health problems and drug and alcohol addiction.
	Ministers’ sheer incompetence in introducing the NHS 111 phone line has compounded the pressures in A and E. They were repeatedly warned, by the Royal College of Nursing, the British Medical Association, the Ambulance
	Service Network, NHS Direct and potential private providers, about problems with their rushed roll-out, but they ploughed on regardless. The result was patients left hanging on the phone or waiting hours for call-backs, more ambulances being sent, and more patients ending up in already struggling A and Es. A report on this fiasco by the NHS Alliance, which represents primary care providers and commissioners, says that
	“providers were put under unprecedented pressure by the Department of Health to meet their go live dates even if...they weren’t prepared”.
	They say that the Government’s contracts focused more on cost than quality, yet they have disgracefully ended up failing on both.
	We now face the real risk that the Government will fail to put in place many of the key changes that patients and the public desperately need. It is right that the Government are looking at the training of nurses throughout the NHS. I have no doubt that Sir Mike Richards will be an excellent chief inspector of hospitals. However, regulation happens after the event, whereas we need to focus on preventing problems from happening in the first place. That means having clear lines of accountability and responsibility from the bedside to the boardroom. It means listening to patients and the public. It means having a strong voice for local Healthwatch bodies. Hon. Members will know that up and down the country those have been very slow to get up and running and have very few staff. The task put on to them—to make sure that they are a strong voice for patients and the public—will be extremely difficult to carry out.
	The Government are missing out on three key issues that have repeatedly come up in this debate. The Keogh review found time and again that staff shortages in the 14 hospitals with higher mortality rates are a real risk to the safety and quality of patient care, as did the Francis inquiry into the appalling failings at Mid Staffs hospital. That is why Francis makes very clear recommendations about staff numbers. The Secretary of State would not take an intervention from me earlier, so I will tell him what I was going to say now. Recommendations 22 and 23 in the Francis report say:
	“The National Institute for Health and Clinical Excellence should”
	set out
	“standard procedures and practice”
	and those should include what each service
	“is likely to require as a minimum in terms of staff numbers and skill mix. This should include nursing staff on wards, as well as clinical staff.”
	The report also says that
	“no unregistered person should…provide…direct physical care to patients”
	and that this
	“should apply to healthcare support workers”.
	We tried for many years to improve their training, but without their being registered so that it could be guaranteed that they had the training required, it was not possible to do so. I called for this back in 2001, before I became an MP. The same arguments were being made then. We have not made progress and we need to do so now.
	Finally, Francis says there should be a statutory duty of candour on individual registered staff as well as providers, yet the Government are dragging their feet
	on all those key recommendations. As Peter Walsh, the chief executive of Action against Medical Accidents, said yesterday,
	“ministers are still refusing to accept key recommendations such as minimum staffing levels for wards and regulation of healthcare assistants.”
	He also said that he hoped that Sir Bruce Keogh’s report will change the Government’s mind, and Opposition Members agree with him.
	Government Members have made unfounded accusations that Labour Members covered up problems in the NHS, but our record proves that we did the precise opposite: independent inspection of the NHS for the first time; national data published on heart and stroke care and hip and knee operations for the first time; patient choice of hospital enshrined for the first time; and, far from ignoring mortality rates, it was the Labour Government who published them on the NHS Choices website for the first time.
	Government attempts to smear former Ministers are shameful, but the real tragedy is not the cynical, political agenda being pursued by the Conservative party; it is that over the past three years the Government have put the NHS through risks that could have been avoided and they are failing to put in place the real changes and reforms that patients and the public need. I commend the motion to the House.

Daniel Poulter: It is a great pleasure to rise to speak in support of the amendment tabled by my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister.
	Both sides of the House believe in our NHS, the staff who work in it and the care they provide for patients. I am also sure that both sides recognise that, in the wake of the Francis inquiry and yesterday’s report from Sir Bruce Keogh, the 65th year of the NHS has been its most challenging and that we need to face up to those challenges.
	This debate has had three key themes: the importance of the NHS, the staff who work in it and the care they provide for patients; the importance of making greater productivity gains in the NHS to improve care and make sure that we do more with our resources; and the importance of openness and transparency and the need to learn lessons from things that have gone wrong, so that patient care can be improved.
	Back Benchers have made some high-quality contributions. It is always a pleasure to hear the hon. Member for Walsall South (Valerie Vaz) and the right hon. Member for Holborn and St Pancras (Frank Dobson). The hon. Member for Halton (Derek Twigg) made a very strong case for his local health care services. I pay particular tribute to the right hon. Member for Cynon Valley (Ann Clwyd), who has done some tremendous work in looking at how we can improve the NHS complaints procedure. She read out a number of examples of things that have gone badly wrong, from which we need to learn lessons for the future. The work she is doing at the moment is hugely important and valuable, and the Government look forward to receiving her report shortly.
	My hon. Friend the Member for Bracknell (Dr Lee) highlighted some of the challenges with the existing
	NHS estate and the need to modernise facilities and make some of the older buildings more fit for purpose to meet the needs of patients in the modern world. My hon. Friend the Member for Bristol North West (Charlotte Leslie) made a very brave speech. She spoke at great length—and rightly so—about the importance of involving the medical royal colleges in deciding how hospital inspection processes should be implemented and about the importance of clinical leadership and involvement in those inspections to help understand what good care looks like. After all, those colleges are centres of excellence in their fields and it is right that we listen to what they have to say.
	My hon. Friend the Member for Southport (John Pugh) made a particularly thoughtful speech. He called for good management and spoke of the need for good managers in the NHS. He also made the important point that, in all our debates on patients who have been let down, the regulators have often not played their part. That is why we need to ensure that the regulators continue to come to the table and that the improvements at the CQC continue. The regulators need to remain fit for purpose.
	The problem with mandatory staffing ratios is that they would just provide another tick box that would not necessarily bear a relation to what good clinical care looks like. There is a clear difference between mandatory staffing ratios and appropriate staffing levels, as the Francis report indicated. We need staffing levels that reflect the needs of the patients on the ward. Those will vary from ward to ward and will change on a daily basis according to the needs of different patients. It is important that we consider the patients who are in front of the doctors and nurses on the day. It may not be nursing care that is needed, but care from other members of the multi-disciplinary team such as physiotherapists and health care assistants. That is why it is wrong to use mandatory staffing ratios as a measure of good care.

Barbara Keeley: The point that I keep raising with the hon. Gentleman, other Ministers and the Secretary of State is that there must be transparency in the numbers. Ratios of 2:29 have been reported to me, which nobody would be comfortable with. My excellent local hospital puts information about staffing ratios on the boards in each ward. Does he not think that we should move rapidly to provide transparency on this matter? I am asking not for mandated ratios, but transparency so that patients and their families can see what the ratio is.

Daniel Poulter: The hon. Lady makes a very good point about the importance of having staffing levels that are appropriate to the needs of the patients. That is why NHS England is considering toolkits that will help hospitals to build the right care in the right place and at the right time for patients and to adapt care so that it is provided by the appropriate professionals, according to patient need.
	The debate has rightly focused on transparency and openness. We have not got that right in the NHS since the Bristol heart inquiry, which took place under the previous Government. Both the Government and the Opposition believe that we need to support staff who feel that they need to speak out and that there needs to
	be greater transparency and openness. I believe that the steps that the Government are taking will make a difference. We are introducing a contractual right for staff to raise concerns and issuing guidance on good practice in supporting staff to raise concerns. We are strengthening the NHS constitution and have set up the whistleblowing hotline to support whistleblowers. We are also amending legislation to secure protection for all staff through the Public Interest Disclosure Act 1998. We are doing good work and it is right that we continue to do all that we can to support staff in raising concerns about patient care, where that is appropriate.
	We must focus on improving productivity in the NHS so that we can do more with the resources that we have. As the Secretary of State outlined, that is about improving the technology in the NHS so that we can spend more money on care and free up staff time. If we use technology to better join up health and social care, staff will spend less time on paperwork and more time with patients, which will improve patient care.
	It is important to consider the fact that there are higher levels of morbidity and mortality at weekends and in the evenings. There needs to be more consultant cover and out-of-hours cover at those crucial times to ensure that the service is more responsive to patients. The Government are addressing that.
	In conclusion, at the beginning of this debate, the right hon. Member for Leigh (Andy Burnham) rightly highlighted the long-standing problems in our NHS. Although Labour is now talking about social care, it was the last Labour Government who cut the social care budget between 2005 and 2010. Although Labour is now talking about the risk register, the last Labour Government refused to publish it.

Rosie Winterton: claimed to move the closure (Standing Order No. 36).
	Question put forthwith, That the Question be now put.
	Question agreed to.

Question put accordingly(Standing Order No. 31(2)), That the original words stand part of the Question.
	The House divided:
	Ayes 214, Noes 277.

Question accordingly negatived.
	Question put forthwith (Standing Order No. 31(2)), That the proposed words be there added.
	The House divided:
	Ayes 276, Noes 212.

Question accordingly agreed to.
	The Speaker declared the main Question, as amended, to be agreed to (Standing Order No.31(2)).
	Resolved,
	That this Housewelcomes the Government’s swift action in response to the Francis Report; notes the rapid establishment of reviews on key components of the Report’s findings, including the
	Cavendish review on healthcare assistants, the Clwyd-Hart review on complaints and the Berwick review on patient safety; further notes the drive to improve standards through the appointment of a Chief Inspector of Hospitals, the introduction of Ofsted-style ratings and the recruitment of specialist hospital inspectors; regrets the Opposition’s continued refusal to support these practical measures to expose and improve poor care; welcomes the watershed decision to expose and investigate 14 hospitals with high death rates through the recent Keogh review; further notes the Government’s decisive action to drive improvements in these hospitals by placing 11 hospitals in special measures; and applauds the Government’s wide-ranging efforts to introduce greater transparency and accountability in the NHS.

Business without Debate
	 — 
	Deferred Divisions

Motion made, and Question put forthwith (Standing Order No. 41A(3)),
	That, at this day’s sitting, Standing Order No. 41A (Deferred divisions) shall not apply to the Motion in the name of Greg Clark relating to the Multiannual Financial Framework, 2014–2020.—(Anne Milton.)
	Question agreed to.

Business of the House

Motion made, and Question put forthwith (Standing Order No. 15),
	That, at this day’s sitting, the Motion in the name of the Prime Minister relating to Trident Alternatives Review may be proceeded with, though opposed, until 10 o’clock or for three hours, whichever is the later.—(Anne Milton.)
	Question agreed to.

European union documents

Motion made, and Question put forthwith (Standing Order No. 119(11)),

Multiannual Financial Framework, 2014–2020

That this House takes note of European Union Documents No. 8041/13, draft Amending Budget No. 2 to the General Budget 2013: general statement of revenue: statement of expenditure by section: Section III: Commission, No. 11295/13, a draft Council Regulation laying down the Multiannual Financial Framework for the years 2014–2020, No. 11298/13, a draft Inter-Institutional Agreement between the European Parliament, the Council and the Commission on budgetary discipline, cooperation in budgetary matters and on sound financial management, and No. 11307/13, a draft Council Regulation laying down the Multiannual Financial Framework for the years 2014–2020 and Inter-Institutional Agreement between the European Parliament, the Council and the Commission on budgetary discipline, cooperation in budgetary matters and on sound financial management: Draft Declarations; agrees with the Government that at a time of ongoing economic fragility in Europe and tight constraints on domestic public spending, the MFF agreement reached, which delivers a reduction of €35 billion on the current period in the seven year payment ceilings to €908.4 billion, a real-terms reduction of over three per cent in payment appropriations, represents a good deal for taxpayers; welcomes the Government’s successful defence of the UK abatement, noting that UK contributions to the EU budget have risen in recent years due to the 2005 decision to give away parts of the abatement, shares the Government’s disappointment at the Council Decision to agree an additional €7.3 billion in 2013 in draft Amending Budget No. 2 and welcomes the Government’s opposition to that decision, reflecting as it does the weaknesses in the 2007-13 deal.—(Anne Milton.)
	Question agreed to.

Mr Speaker: I have now to announce the results of a number of deferred Divisions. On the Question relating to the draft Unfair Dismissal Order 2013, the Ayes were 300 and the Noes were 204, so the Question was agreed to.
	In the deferred Division on the Question relating to the draft order to amend the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012, the Ayes were 299 and the Noes were 205, so the Question was agreed to.
	In the deferred Division on the Question relating to the Court of Judicature, Northern Ireland, the Ayes were 301 and the Noes were 203, so the Question was agreed to.
	In the deferred Division on the Question relating to the senior courts of England and Wales, the Ayes were 300 and the Noes were 202, so the Question was agreed to.
	[The Division lists are published at the end of today’s debates.]

Robert Flello: On a point of order, Mr Speaker. The House is probably not aware that the Central Lobby reception staff, William and Carlos, are due to be subject to a major change. Central Lobby reception staff, as the first point of contact for Members and the public, give a positive impression of both Houses in their fine formal clothing, mirroring that of our excellent Doorkeepers. They have an extensive knowledge of the Members of both Houses and the ability to provide an important extra layer of security to the Palace of Westminster. All that is set to change this October.
	Gone will be the smart formal wear, to be replaced by what in my opinion, by comparison, is a sort of glorified school uniform. The staff will be on rotation, so that valuable knowledge will be lost, and I believe security will be seriously weakened. May I ask, Mr Speaker, that
	your Committee meeting in September urgently considers this issue, and perhaps considers transferring the function of Central Lobby staff to the Serjeant at Arms Office? In the meantime, may we have a moratorium on these changes until the end of the year?

Mr Speaker: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for his point of order. I make two points in response. First, security matters should not be discussed on the Floor of the House, and the hon. Gentleman will not expect me to do so. Secondly, with reference to the changes that he describes, it is of course open to the hon. Gentleman and others to discuss these matters with the Serjeant at Arms if he so wishes. If there is a feeling among Members that they would wish this matter to come before the House of Commons Commission, I cannot off the top of my head see any reason why that should not be possible. I think I would want to consider the matter further, but my instinctive reaction to the hon. Gentleman is what I have just set out. I hope that that is helpful to him and to others interested in the matter.

Gerald Howarth: Further to that point of order, Mr Speaker. I was not aware of that proposal until I heard about it a moment ago from the hon. Member for Stoke-on-Trent South (Robert Flello). I am bound to say that what he said shocks me. I hear what you have said, Mr Speaker, and I would like to make it known that I, with a few years’ experience in this House, strongly endorse everything the hon. Gentleman said.

Mr Speaker: On the strength of what the hon. Gentleman has just said, it looks to me as though he is potentially joining forces with the hon. Member for Stoke-on-Trent South (Robert Flello) and could be part of a delegation. It is always a pleasure to hear from both hon. Members—on this occasion and, it would appear, in the autumn. I hope that is helpful.

Trident Alternatives Review

Mr Speaker: Before I call the Minister responsible for the review to move the motion, I should stress that 16 Members are seeking to catch the Chair’s eye. I therefore propose that there should be a six-minute limit on Back-Bench contributions. Such a limit would of course have to be reviewed in the light of Front-Bench contributions. I feel confident, therefore, that the Minister and shadow Minister will wish considerately to tailor their contributions to facilitate the participation of their colleagues.

Danny Alexander: I beg to move,
	That this House has considered the Trident Alternatives Review.
	Thank you, Mr Speaker; I shall certainly do as you say. I will also tailor the number of interventions I take to meet your invocation.
	Yesterday, the Prime Minister and the Deputy Prime Minister published the Trident alternatives review—the most thorough review of nuclear weapon systems and postures that the UK has undertaken for decades, and the most comprehensive analysis ever made public. For the first time in a generation—

Julian Lewis: rose—

Danny Alexander: I will make some progress before giving way.
	For the first time in a generation, the Trident alternatives review shows that there are credible and viable alternatives to the United Kingdom’s current approach to nuclear deterrence. A different approach would allow the UK to contribute meaningfully to the new multilateral drive for disarmament initiated by President Obama, while maintaining our national security and our ultimate insurance policy against future threats.

Caroline Lucas: rose—

John Baron: rose—

Danny Alexander: I will take some interventions later, but in the light of what Mr Speaker has said, I will make some progress.
	A different approach could allow long-term savings—about £4 billion over the life of the system—to be made against current plans. Let me be clear: this does not change current Government policy to maintain Britain’s nuclear deterrent and prepare for a successor system. It does mean that we can at last have an open and much more informed debate about what our nuclear weapons are for and how they should be deployed—a debate that provides our country with a chance to change course before the main-gate decision for a successor system is taken in 2016.

Julian Lewis: I am grateful to the Chief Secretary for giving way. He says this is the most comprehensive examination for many years—that is open to question—but will he explain why it considered only the four-boat and three-boat options for Trident, not the two-boat options that the Liberal Democrats plan to put to their conference as Liberal Democrat policy?

Danny Alexander: My hon. Friend will have a chance to see the proposed Liberal Democrat policy paper when it is published in a few weeks’ time. The purpose of this debate is to consider the Trident alternatives review.

Caroline Lucas: On the review’s comprehensive nature, does the right hon. Gentleman not agree that a review that fails even to consider the option of not replacing Trident at all and having no nuclear submarines is ultimately flawed? Decades after the cold war and in the midst of austerity, the key question that has to be asked is whether Britain needs a nuclear submarine system that will cost us £100 billion over the next 30 years.

Danny Alexander: That is of course a legitimate point for political debate, but the purpose of the review was to consider alternative nuclear weapon systems that could act as a deterrent. The review was never designed to consider the option of unilateral disarmament, although the hon. Lady is free to argue for that.

Bob Ainsworth: rose—

Danny Alexander: I give way to the former Secretary of State.

Bob Ainsworth: If this was the most comprehensive examination of our nuclear weapons system in a generation, why did the right hon. Gentleman not take evidence from individuals outside government?

Danny Alexander: It was a review conducted within government, taking advice from senior officials, as with every other government review. Indeed, the right hon. Gentleman has been involved in such reviews the past, and I am sure he knows better.

John Baron: rose—

James Arbuthnot: rose—

Tobias Ellwood: rose—

Danny Alexander: I will take one more intervention and then make some progress.

Tobias Ellwood: I am grateful to the right hon. Gentleman for coming to the Chamber today. He says this is the most comprehensive review we have had. That is open to question, but is he saying that after a two-year study we still do not know what the Liberal Democrat position is on this important subject?

Danny Alexander: I am here to set out the details of the review. Those are the terms of the debate today. I will set out my own views in the course of my speech, if my hon. Friend will allow me time to get on with it.

James Arbuthnot: rose—

Danny Alexander: I will, however, give way to the Chairman of the Select Committee first.

James Arbuthnot: I am grateful to the Chief Secretary. I am trying to take this document seriously, but I am having some difficulty, not least because of the removal
	by my right hon. Friend the Deputy Prime Minister of the excellent Liberal Democrat Minister from the Ministry of Defence, which shows something of his party's attitude towards defence. Does the Chief Secretary to the Treasury accept that his policy would destroy the submarine building industry of this country?

Danny Alexander: No, I certainly do not accept that, but I join my right hon. Friend in paying tribute to my hon. Friend the Member for North Devon (Sir Nick Harvey), who made an enormous contribution to this review.

Several hon. Members: rose—

Danny Alexander: I will take one more intervention, then I will make some progress.

John Woodcock: I very much appreciate the Chief Secretary to the Treasury giving way. Further to the point on the submarine building industry, and in relation to the £4 billion saving that he has just mentioned, does he accept that chart 2 on page 42 of the document includes the platform, the missile, the infrastructure, the warhead and the policy change costs, but does not include the cost of bringing forward the next submarine project to plug the gap in the Barrow shipyard’s order book? That omission could cripple submarine building in this country for ever.

Danny Alexander: One of the review’s assumptions is that we would wish to maintain our sovereign submarine building capability. That is the policy of the Government and it sounds as though it is the hon. Gentleman’s policy, too—[Interruption.] If hon. Members will calm down for a second, I will tell them that it does include the cost of maintaining that capability. All the alternatives include the procurement of further submarines after the successor.
	As the House knows, the review was commissioned by the Prime Minister and Deputy Prime Minister, initially with my hon. Friend the Member for North Devon as the Minister in charge. My hon. Friend deserves a huge share of the credit for this work. It has been taken forward under the auspices of the Cabinet Office, with a cross-government team of expert civilian and military officials. I should like to take this opportunity to thank them for their hard work.
	During my visits to Aldermaston, Faslane and Coulport as part of the review, I had the privilege of meeting many of the submariners of the Royal Navy, as well as the scientists, engineers and other civilians who support them. They are some of Britain’s hidden heroes, often unsung, who operate at the limits of human understanding. Seeing them in action also gives me confidence that if the next Government were to change their mission, they would deliver it just as effectively, and in the most efficient and credible way. The review will provide the opportunity to do that.
	As I said in response to an earlier intervention, it is also important to be clear what the review was not about. First, it was not about short-term savings to help to deal with the current deficit. It is possible under some of the options that savings against current plans would start to accrue from the mid-2020s, but this is not about back-filling budgets in the next Parliament. As I also said earlier, the review has not addressed the question of
	whether the UK should remain a nuclear weapon power, because complete unilateral disarmament is not the policy of either the Conservative party or the Liberal Democrats—or, indeed, of Labour. The review did not seek to address the question of whether we should possess nuclear weapons. However, the scale and posture of our nuclear weapon capability can change.

John Baron: Many of us who believe that a continuous-at-sea nuclear deterrent is absolutely essential, and that anything else involves living in cloud cuckoo land, also believe that we should honour those who were in at the very beginning of our nuclear arms age—the British nuclear test veterans. The British Nuclear Test Veterans Association and many parliamentarians from both sides of the House have come together to campaign for recognition for the veterans. We have written to the Prime Minister and had meetings with Ministers. Will the Government look again at the campaign, because we rank very lowly on the international table of decency on this issue—

Dawn Primarolo: Order. The hon. Gentleman’s intervention has gone on for too long.

Danny Alexander: I certainly hear the point my hon. Friend is making. The veterans clearly played an important role in the development of the deterrent, and I am sure that the Under-Secretary of State for Defence, my hon. Friend the Member for Ludlow (Mr Dunne), who is going to reply to the debate, will be able to add something more on that in his comments.
	The review was tasked to answer three questions. First, are there credible alternatives to submarine-based deterrence; secondly, are there credible submarine-based alternatives to the current proposal; and, thirdly, are there alternative nuclear postures that could maintain credibility? The review has been thorough, detailed, extensive and objective. The analysis looks in detail at specific combinations of platform, delivery vehicle and warhead design, but excludes technologies that could not be ready by 2035. Variants of the current successor programme are included.
	As for alternative platforms, the review considered large aircraft, combat jets, surface ships and multiple types of submarine, including those with a dual role. As for alternative delivery systems, the final analysis was focused on two types of potential future cruise missile—a subsonic stealthy cruise missile and a supersonic cruise missile, each carrying one warhead. Warhead design issues were considered and were important in the review.
	An assessment of our ability to deliver alternative options showed that producing the warhead and its integration into a cruise missile or bomb would be the critical challenge. The reality is that the UK nuclear warhead programme is highly optimised around producing and maintaining warheads for the Trident missile. The review found that moving towards an alternative would add technical, financial and schedule risk to the programme. Delivering a warhead for an alternative system would therefore take at least 24 years—deliverable with some risk by about 2040. The crucial point is that the review judged this warhead time scale to be longer than the Vanguard submarines can safely be operated for. There are, of course, options to bridge the gap, but when we
	look at the cost of alternative systems, it becomes clear that each cruise missile-based option includes an extra £10 billion on its price tag because of the need to bridge the gap.
	The bottom line is this, and I quote from the review:
	“The analysis has shown that there are alternatives to Trident that would enable the UK to be capable of inflicting significant damage such that most potential adversaries around the world would be deterred.”
	The analysis shows that cruise missile-based options are militarily credible, but, because of the gap, my conclusion is that a replacement nuclear deterrent based on the current Trident system is the most cost-effective for the period we are considering.

Julian Brazier: I am most grateful to my right hon. Friend for giving way and I welcome his conclusion on submarines, but will he accept that continuous-at-sea deterrence is rather like pregnancy—nature admits of no middle position?

Danny Alexander: I will come to that, but I do not accept the point; that may be an accurate description of pregnancy, but not of deterrent postures.

Gisela Stuart: I want to come back to the right hon. Gentleman’s analysis of the threat. Does he agree with President Obama who said in Prague that
	“the threat of global nuclear war has gone down, but the risk of a nuclear attack has gone up”?

Danny Alexander: I agree with many of the things President Obama has said, including in his recent Berlin speech. I would point the hon. Lady, however, to the Government’s own threat assessment in the strategic security and defence review, which says that state-on-state nuclear attacks are a tier 2 threat. I will come to the threat analysis in a moment.

Bernard Jenkin: This is the nub of matter. That is just one threat assessment, but no serious conflict with which this country has been involved over decades—extending even to the second world war—has been expected. Wars are unexpected, so why does the right hon. Gentleman rest any assurance on a single threat assessment? How does he know that that threat assessment will not have to be changed in a few days’ time, let alone in 10 or 20 years?

Danny Alexander: I will address that point as I move through my speech, although I am glad to have taken my hon. Friend’s intervention. All I would say is that the degree of readiness of our conventional weapons and forces is scaled to the threats of the time, and my precise proposal is that we could adopt a similar approach here.

Menzies Campbell: In assessing the contribution of President Obama to this debate, will my right hon. Friend take into account the fact that the United States is intending to reduce its fleet of submarines carrying Trident missiles from 18 to 12,
	and that the Berlin speech was the second time that President Obama has argued very strongly for multilateral nuclear disarmament?

Danny Alexander: I entirely agree. I applaud President Obama’s leadership of the disarmament debate. I think that the review gives the United Kingdom an opportunity to contribute further both to disarmament and to the global movement towards the de-alerting of our nuclear weapons.

Jeremy Corbyn: Will the right hon. Gentleman give way?

Danny Alexander: No, I will not. I will give way later, but I want to make some progress first.
	The review presents a much greater opportunity for change and the consideration of alternative postures, and that in turn presents the possibility of maintaining our nuclear deterrent capability with fewer submarines. This is where the real opportunity resides for making long-term savings, for recalibrating our policy to the requirements of our ages, and—as we just heard from my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for North East Fife (Sir Menzies Campbell)—for contributing to nuclear disarmament.
	Analysis of the national security strategy confirms the position adopted by successive Governments that
	“no state currently has both the intent and the capability to threaten the independence or integrity of the UK. But we cannot dismiss the possibility that a major direct nuclear threat to the UK might re-emerge.”
	With no hostile backdrop and a surprise attack against the UK highly unlikely, the United Kingdom could adopt a number of viable and credible alternative postures while maintaining a nuclear deterrence capability that meets the needs of national security.
	The review demonstrates that our current nuclear posture of continuous-at-sea deterrence is not the only one available. Let me briefly describe four of the alternative postures that were considered in the review, from highest to lowest readiness. Each of them represents a different rung on the nuclear ladder, with CASD at the top.
	A posture of focused deterrence would maintain a continuous nuclear deterrent for a specific period in response to a specific threat. At all other times, the system could adopt a reduced readiness level. We considered three options for reduced readiness. A so-called sustained-deterrence posture would mean regular patrols that maintained deterrence capability, but the number of platforms could be reduced. A responsive posture would allow gaps of irregular frequency and length between deployment, so that a potential adversary could not predict when and for how long a gap in deployment might occur. A posture of preserved deterrence would hold forces at low readiness. Under preserved deterrence, no platforms would be regularly deployed, but the UK would maintain the ability to deploy if the context changed.
	The review clearly demonstrates that the concept of a ladder of nuclear capability and readiness is viable and credible, and that there is a number of options for taking steps down the rungs without getting off altogether.

David Davies: Will the right hon. Gentleman give way?

Danny Alexander: I will happily give way after I have made a bit more progress.
	According to the review’s description of alternative postures, those options could include operating fewer Vanguard submarines, ending CASD for less frequent patrols, and un-armed patrols.
	Of course, coming down the ladder depends on judgments that we make about future threats and our legal and international obligations. I should make it clear that adopting a non-continuous posture means accepting a different calculation of risk from that which existed during the cold war. However, I consider it imperative for us to update our calculation of risk. If CASD is an insurance policy, we are paying too high a premium for our needs.

Liam Fox: Will my right hon. Friend give way?

Danny Alexander: I am going to make some more progress.
	The 2010 national security strategy considers state-on-state nuclear war to be a second-tier threat. The argument that a current adversary would take the opportunity to target the UK during a period when no boat is covertly deployed and to launch an overwhelming nuclear strike against Britain is not supported by any analysis that I have seen.

Liam Fox: Will my right hon. Friend give way on that point?

Danny Alexander: I am going to make some progress—oh, I am sorry. I will give way to the former Defence Secretary.

Liam Fox: What level of threat assessment would require us to go back up the ladder and reinstate CASD, and how quickly could that be done if it had been abandoned at this point?

Danny Alexander: As my right hon. Friend will know, the first question is a matter of political judgment for the Government of the day. As for the second, it would depend on which of the alternative postures was adopted. They would all be designed to allow us to surge back to the so-called focused deterrence, which would sustain a continuous posture in response to our needs.
	The reality is that in the current circumstances, and for the foreseeable future, the ultimate guarantee does not need to sit on a hair trigger. We can afford to go much further in de-alerting our nuclear deterrent. The option of non-continuous deterrence does not threaten current security, and by changing postures we can reduce cost at the same time. For example, ending CASD and procuring one fewer successor submarine would make a saving of about £4 billion over the life of the system.

Jeremy Corbyn: May I put a simple question to the right hon. Gentleman? In what circumstances would he envisage the use of nuclear weapons, and the problems that would follow as a result of their use?

Danny Alexander: The whole purpose of nuclear deterrents is to deter their use.
	The judgment must be made about where on the ladder we believe that it is credible to stand, provided that the ability to scale up or down as threats change and the momentum of proliferation on the one hand and disarmament on the other shift. As a recognised nuclear weapon state under the non-proliferation treaty, we have an obligation to move towards a world in which nuclear weapons are no longer part of state security and defence postures. It is true that Britain has made significant steps since the cold war in disarmament terms. Some would argue that Britain has done its bit for disarmament and we have reached the minimum level possible. That argument has been deployed at every point at which we have scaled down over the past 20 years, but each time it has proven not to be true. The next step down the ladder is to reduce the salience of nuclear weapons in our defence policy itself, which means accepting that a cold-war-style continuous deterrent has become unnecessary.

Mark Lazarowicz: If the right hon. Gentleman accepts that the UK will have a non-continuous deterrent, it means that there will be times when the UK does not have an active deterrent. Why then did he rule out the option, at least, of not continuing with the deterrent programme at all?

Danny Alexander: I do not accept the premise of the hon. Gentleman’s question and I have answered the substance of it in answer to an earlier intervention.

David Davies: Surely we either have a full-time deterrent or we do not. If we do not have one, we might as well stand as high as we possibly can on the ladder so that our enemies can see the white flag that we will need to wave at them.

Danny Alexander: I am afraid that my hon. Friend has clearly not been listening to the analysis or read the review. Just last month, in Berlin, President Obama called for movement beyond the “cold war nuclear postures” and announced a major reduction in the US nuclear arsenal. It is my hope that in the next Parliament the UK will answer that call with a serious consideration of ending continuous nuclear deterrence.
	The review is the most comprehensive study on nuclear weapon platforms and postures ever published by the UK Government. I believe that as large numbers of nuclear weapons remain and the risk of proliferation continues, it is right that the UK retains a nuclear capability for as long as the global security situation makes that necessary. But I also believe that that capability should be scaled and deployed to meet the threat we face now, and held as a contingency to deal with the threats we may face in the future. We should seek to balance the costs of this insurance policy against the other needs of defence and, indeed, other priorities across government.
	The conclusion I draw from the Trident alternatives review is that although alternatives exist, there is no new system available before the lives of the current Vanguard submarines come to an end to meet those criteria. But a step down the ladder is available: ending 24-hour patrols when we do not need them and procuring fewer successor submarines, moving on from an outdated cold war concept of deterrence to one fit for the world we inhabit now. For the remainder of this Parliament the coalition
	Government’s policy will remain exactly as set out in the strategic defence and security review. We will maintain the deterrent as it is, and preparations for a successor system will continue. But the final main-gate decision on whether to proceed with a like-for-like replacement of Trident will be made in 2016, after the next general election. It is therefore up to the different political parties in this House to decide the positions they will take before that time. For the country, I hope that the publication of this review will mark the start of a national debate on one of the most profound questions of our time, and I commend the Trident alternatives review to the House.

Kevan Jones: I have to say at the outset that I have a little difficulty here, because the Chief Secretary to the Treasury either has a different report in front of him or he has read the report and not understood it. The Government commissioned the alternatives review into the future of UK nuclear deterrence back in 2011. It was part of the agreement in the shotgun marriage between the Conservatives and the Liberal Democrats following the 2010 general election. As he said, the Government’s stated position was to “maintain Britain’s nuclear deterrent”, but the Liberal Democrats had an opt-out in that they could be allowed to make the case for alternatives. So, more than two years later, we have finally been presented with those alternatives.

Edward Leigh: Will the Labour party confirm its admirable commitment to continuous-at-sea deterrence in any coalition negotiations? Will the hon. Gentleman say that in Labour’s view this is non-negotiable?

Kevan Jones: My position is very clear: I am working for a Labour victory at the next general election. But on the issue of continuous-at-sea deterrence, my answer is yes. Even though the report was commissioned by Her Majesty’s Government, its first line has the strange disclaimer:
	“This…is not a statement of government policy.”
	This must be the first time ever that the findings of a Government policy review have been abandoned at birth.

Tessa Munt: Will the hon. Gentleman explain why today’s edition of The Times carries a headline that reads “Labour could cut Trident fleet after review suggests this would save £1.7bn”?

Kevan Jones: I am not sure where that came from, first, because the figure that the hon. Lady cites is not correct—this would not be the first time that a newspaper had failed to do its sums—and, secondly, because we agree with what the Defence Secretary says. If changes in technology make the nuclear submarines more reliable, meaning that we can go down to three, we will consider that.
	Many Labour Members have waited anxiously to see the report’s conclusion but, 26 months later, the review to make the case for the alternatives, which had the full
	weight of the Government’s resources behind it, presents us with no conclusions, makes no recommendations and does not even support adopting any of the alternatives put forward by the Chief Secretary. Only the Liberal Democrats could envisage an alternatives review that rejects all the alternatives. It is the equivalent of starting a journey to discover the ark of the covenant only to end up where we began with the conclusion that it does not exist.
	The Liberal Democrats’ 2010 manifesto said:
	“At a cost of £100 billion over a lifetime”
	Trident
	“is unaffordable, and Britain’s security would be better served by alternatives.”
	If that was the case in 2010, given that those alternatives have not been identified in the review, surely it is not too much to ask that the Deputy Prime Minister and his Liberal Democrat colleagues admit that what they claimed in 2010 was wrong. One by one, each of the alternative platforms to Trident are rejected in the review. Heavy bombers, fast jets, low-orbit vehicles, land silos and maritime surface vessels are all discredited for not offering sufficient capability while costing more.
	The review even dismisses the Liberal Democrats’ most favoured option of replacing Trident with nuclear-armed cruise missiles. Page 45 of the document states that cruise missiles
	“offer a much reduced level of destructive and second-strike capability and an increased level of operational complexity”.
	Page 6 states:
	“Maintaining the same level of assurance that the UK deterrent can overcome an adversary’s defences is…likely to be harder with a cruise missile-based system.”
	Page 8 points out that the cost of developing a nuclear-armed cruise missile would more than double the cost of Trident missiles and would take some 24 years. In support of that argument, the Deputy Prime Minister told Andrew Marr in 2010 that the UK
	“could use Astute class submarines and use cruise missiles.”
	It is true that they are alternatives but, as the report says, they are not only very expensive, but not very good.
	The review totally discredits the Liberal Democrats’ previous policy decisions. In fact, some of the more ludicrous suggestions were not considered in the report because exploring them was deemed to be a waste of civil service time and energy. Page 16 dismisses some of those more wacky ideas, such as using helicopters, unmanned air vehicles or space-based platforms. Hand-held devices on the ground were also excluded
	“as they would not meet several constraints, including in particular credibility and absolute range.”
	The report is therefore credible, as even the most far-fetched suggestions put forward in the outer reaches of the Liberal Democrat world have been addressed.

Menzies Campbell: The hon. Gentleman is right that not all parties have been entirely consistent on this matter, but may I remind him that, prior to the 1992 election, the Labour party refused to commit to a fourth submarine, but suggested that one way of maintaining employment at Barrow-in-Furness would be to turn the submarine into an underwater oil carrier?

Kevan Jones: I had not heard that one. I thought the Liberal Democrats might come forward with a proposal to turn one of the submarines into an underwater famine relief vessel, or some such nonsense.

John Woodcock: The right hon. and learned Member for North East Fife (Sir Menzies Campbell) has a point, but does it not prove that we have learnt from our past mistakes and clearly the Liberal Democrats have not?

Kevan Jones: I could not have put it better myself. I will move on to discuss my hon. Friend’s constituency in a minute.

Menzies Campbell: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

Kevan Jones: I think that the right hon. and learned Gentleman has had enough time, and the time is limited.
	There was another option that was deemed unworthy of examination by what is otherwise a thorough and forensic document: sending two unarmed submarines out on patrol with the intention of stepping up our posture in a time of crisis. That is the policy the Chief Secretary has just proposed.

Julian Lewis: I read that report in The Times, and it seems to me that what was being said was that the Labour party is committed to continuous-at-sea deterrence and the only question is whether it can do it with three submarines or whether it would have to do it with four. The one thing that is absolutely certain from the report is that it cannot be done with two, yet the Chief Secretary’s position is that if a crisis arose they would step up their performance. How could we build a third or fourth extra submarine in time to step up our performance if a crisis arose?

Kevan Jones: I know that the hon. Gentleman has studied this subject thoroughly and is an expert. I totally agree with him. As I said, the Chief Secretary clearly has not read his own report because, as the hon. Gentleman rightly says, it outlines the problem with having only two submarines.
	The Liberal Democrats briefed the newspapers earlier this week that the two-boat option would be a way forward, and the Chief Secretary has just re-outlined that ludicrous policy. My right hon. Friend the Member for East Renfrewshire (Mr Murphy) hit the nail on the head yesterday when he said that it was a little like installing a very expensive burglar alarm on one’s house with no batteries and putting up a sign saying, “Burglars, come in.” The only difference is that this would be a multi-billion pound deterrent that would not deter.

Caroline Lucas: I am sure that the hon. Gentleman, and indeed the Government, would pride themselves on adhering to international law, so can he explain how maintaining an arsenal of nuclear weapons for decades to come is in line with the UK’s obligation under the nuclear non-proliferation treaty, which is
	“to pursue negotiations in good faith on… nuclear disarmament”?

Kevan Jones: It is very consistent, and I am very proud of the Labour Government’s record on reducing our nuclear stockpiles, as we reduced the number of WE177
	bombs and the number of warheads. I disagree with the hon. Lady’s position, but I respect the fact that she has one, which is a lot more honest that the Liberal Democrats.
	However, credit should be given where credit is due. I think that the Chief Secretary should get some credit, because he managed to do something yesterday that I thought was remarkable, although I am sad that it was not reported more in this morning’s newspapers: he got the Prime Minister and Len McCluskey, the general secretary of Unite, to agree with one another, on this occasion on the Liberal Democrat proposals. That was some feat. If he is able to bring two individuals with such diametrically opposed views together, clearly he should turn his attention to the middle east peace process. Quite rightly, Unite described the Liberal Democrats’ position not only as reckless, but as a farce and a fudge, and that is exactly what we have here—[Interruption.] The Chief Secretary says that if Len McCluskey agrees with it, it must be a nonsense position, but he agrees with the Prime Minister, so is the Chief Secretary suggesting that the Prime Minister’s position is ridiculous?

Duncan Hames: If wishing to end a continuous deterrent is such a reckless position, how does the hon. Gentleman think our other NATO allies in Europe can possibly cope with their current situation? Is he recommending that they should escalate their own nuclear posture?

Kevan Jones: The hon. Gentleman has got to try better. The fact of the matter is that France has a continuous-at-sea nuclear deterrent. Our deterrent is part of the nuclear umbrella for NATO. He and his Liberal Democrat colleagues would have more credibility if they came out and said that they were unilateralists, because that is a defendable and credible position, unlike the nonsense they are putting forward.
	The importance of the nuclear programme to this country’s submarine-building capability has been overlooked in the Liberal Democrats’ proposals. My hon. Friend the Member for Barrow and Furness (John Woodcock) is right to point out its importance not only to his constituency but to constituencies in Derby and to the wider supply chain in the United Kingdom. If we are to maintain our sovereign capability, we have to do it by building submarines, and we cannot do that if we follow the Chief Secretary’s suggestion.

Oliver Colvile: Perhaps the hon. Gentleman will also recognise that 25,000 people in Devonport’s travel-to-work area are dependent on defence, and this would have a very damaging impact on the local economy, which is a low-skills, low-wage economy.

Kevan Jones: The hon. Gentleman makes a good point. No doubt at the general election he will remind his constituents and others of the Liberal Democrats’ position. We have some indication of what they think of people in Barrow and Furness because the hon. Member for North Devon (Sir Nick Harvey) suggested that they could move to the Bahamas to find work if we killed off the submarine-building industry there.

Nick Harvey: indicated dissent.

Kevan Jones: But I have the quote here:
	“The idea that you should produce weapons of mass destruction in order to keep 1,500 jobs going in the Barrow shipyard is palpably ludicrous. We could give them all a couple of million quid and send them to the Bahamas for the rest of their lives , and the world would be a much better place, and we would have saved a lot of money.”
	If that is the Liberal Democrats’ policy, I am sure that the people of Barrow and other places in the supply chain will have a clear view on it. He will have a chance later to tell us whether he has changed his position on sending my hon. Friend’s constituents to the Bahamas.

Michael Connarty: I must chide my hon. Friend. If he reads the reports on alternatives to Trident, he will see that even the one on the future of Barrow-in-Furness makes the very important point that no one should ever argue for making weapons of mass destruction on the basis of employment, because there are alternative places for people to work. Both reports produced so far have said that alternative work could be found if we invested properly in other things. It is wrong to argue that employment is a reason for having weapons of mass destruction.

Kevan Jones: I am not saying that; I am saying that we cannot dismiss the fact that these industries do not just employ people. I am proud of the high-technology industries in this country that support the nuclear programme. If the Liberal Democrats are not proud of that technology and the individuals involved in it, then that is their position, but I am certainly proud not only of their skills but of the wealth they create for many communities across the UK. I agree that that is not the only reason we should have the nuclear deterrent, but it is a very important one.

Gerald Howarth: I commend the hon. Gentleman for the strength of his argument. Let me point out—I am sure that he shares this view—that we came perilously close to losing this country’s submarine-building capability. That is a strategically important capability that we need to maintain, and it looks as though the Liberal Democrats are prepared to sacrifice it.

Kevan Jones: I did not want to go down this road because obviously the Conservative Government have learned the lessons from the mistake that they made in the 1990s which created the current problems with Astute. We cannot turn these vital skills on and off like a tap when we need them. I have heard various people say, “Is this a justification for Trident?” No, it is not, but we have to take it into consideration when forming policy, and the Liberal Democrats’ position set out in the review document clearly does not do that.

Alan Reid: The hon. Gentleman said that the Labour party may reduce the number of successor submarines from four to three. What would be the implication of that for Barrow?

Kevan Jones: I did not say that, actually. I said what the Defence Secretary has said—that in thinking about the new nuclear submarines, we should consider whether it would be viable to have three. That is an option worth looking at. We would then have to bring forward the
	successor programme for Astute. If we deleted two boats—
	[
	Interruption.
	]
	The hon. Member for North Devon says, “It’s all right if we do it.” The fact is that if we went down to two we would have a deterrent that is absolutely useless. It would not save the £4 billion that the Chief Secretary suggested because unless we had mass lay-offs in the submarine-building programme, we would have to bring forward more work, including on the successor for Astute.

John Woodcock: Is that not the exact point? Would it not be helpful if the Chief Secretary made clear whether he wants to save that £4 billion over 30 years and decimate Barrow and the submarine-building industry, or whether he will bring forward the work and eliminate all of those savings?

Kevan Jones: My hon. Friend makes a very good point. These are questions that the Liberal Democrats and their nonsense policy have to answer.

Philip Dunne: The hon. Gentleman is making a very important point as part of what appears to be a shift in the official Opposition’s position on continuous-at-sea deterrence. I would be grateful if he would confirm what I think he is saying. Is it the case that he wants to maintain a minimum deterrent capability, which would most likely be four boats unless technological change suggested that it could be maintained with fewer than four boats?

Kevan Jones: That is exactly the case, and I think that the Defence Secretary has said the same thing. It will be achieved not by sticking a finger in the air and thinking of a policy, but by thinking about what we need to keep our nuclear deterrent credible and by maintaining the important continuous-at-sea deterrent.
	As has been said, we are convinced that the only credible way forward for a minimum nuclear deterrent is a continuous-at-sea deterrent; otherwise, the UK would be vulnerable. The Chief Secretary’s suggestion would not only make the UK more vulnerable, but lead to a situation where we would not possess first strike or even second-strike capabilities. It would also be a significant escalatory factor if the UK stepped up its armed CASD posture. It is simply not credible and it is also very dangerous.
	There are options that the alternatives review did not consider, so why are the Liberal Democrats set on the proposals outlined by the Chief Secretary? I think it is the old Liberal Democrat trick—many of us who have dealt with them in local government have seen this over many years—of trying to ride both horses at the same time. They want to appease the party’s unilateralist wing and persuade them that they are scaling down the nuclear ladder, while simultaneously claiming to the electorate that they have a credible nuclear policy, but they have been found out by the alternatives review.
	The Liberal Democrats have commissioned a review in Government time, using taxpayers’ money and resources, in order to supplement their own party’s policy manifesto for 2015. I tabled a written question to the Chief Secretary yesterday asking how much the review cost, and I await his response. The Lib Dem plans have been found wanting and they are now scrambling around frantically
	for a bizarre policy solution in order to advance their much-heralded differentiation strategy, through which they are trying to place themselves between the Labour party and their coalition partners.
	We have all waited for the publication of this report and I think we all genuinely thought it would suggest a credible alternative. Our position is clear: we are committed to the minimum, credible independent nuclear deterrent, which is why we put that policy to the House in 2006. I completely disagree with the Chief Secretary’s comment that this is the most thorough review undertaken. That is complete nonsense, because that review was done in 2006. He should also look at the three comprehensive reports commissioned by the Defence Committee, which covered all the issues.

Bob Ainsworth: We consulted on it.

Kevan Jones: As my right hon. Friend reminds me, we also consulted on the issue and did not conduct our review behind closed doors, as was the case with this one.
	We also believe that the best way to deliver the nuclear deterrent is through a continuous-at-sea deterrent. The review does not appear to suggest anything to the contrary. In fact, it reinforces our point.

Danny Alexander: How much longer have you got?

Kevan Jones: The Chief Secretary asks how much longer I have left. It is taking time to get through the nonsense he has come up with, but I will draw my remarks to a conclusion. I know that this is not very comfortable for the Chief Secretary, but he is going to have to sit there and listen.

Menzies Campbell: This is a serious subject.

Kevan Jones: It is a serious subject. I just wish that Liberal Democrats would treat it seriously, rather than coming up with the nonsense that they keep peddling.
	The alternatives review reinforces my point. On page 5, it states:
	“The highest level of assurance the UK can attain with a single deterrent system is provided by SSBN submarines operating a continuous at sea deterrence posture.”
	On page 10, it states:
	“None of these alternative systems and postures offers the same degree of resilience as the current posture of Continuous at Sea Deterrence, nor could they guarantee a prompt response in all circumstances.”
	I could not put it better myself. Breaking CASD would involve an unacceptable downgrading of our capabilities.
	To return to the issue of cost, we have been told by the Liberal Democrats that the alternatives to Trident would be cheaper, but their review shows that to be complete nonsense. We were told by the Chief Secretary yesterday that the review was not about savings, but about the nuclear deterrent.
	In conclusion, the Liberal Democrats’ review has not only unmasked their political posturing, but reinforced the case for the policy voted for by this House in 2006. [Interruption.] I am sorry that the right hon. and learned Member for North East Fife (Sir Menzies Campbell) is muttering. When he is put under detailed
	examination, he will have to explain the nonsense that he peddled in the run-up to the last general election, which his party’s review has completely discredited. Perhaps he has not read the report. The Liberal Democrats must want to have some credibility. I know that it is not unusual for them to look both ways and ignore the truth, but the report clearly discredits most of the things that he has said over the past few years.
	The alternatives review has looked at the alternatives and come forward with the conclusion that we all thought it would reach: the minimum credible nuclear deterrent for the UK is submarine-based continuous-at-sea deterrent. [Interruption.] Well, that is what it is saying—

Dawn Primarolo: Order. That really is enough. It is impossible for Hansard to keep a proper record of this debate when senior Members keep shouting across the Chamber and the Member on their feet then replies. Either we have interventions or we do not. We are up against the clock and I would appreciate it if we could get on to the Back-Bench speeches.

Kevan Jones: Thank you, Madam Deputy Speaker. I await the examination of the report by the right hon. and learned Member for North East Fife and his justification of his comments over the past few years on this subject.
	The standards that we set in this area are important not just in terms of cost. I know that the Opposition and the Government are conscious of the need to ensure that we not only get value for money, but we have a—

Stephen Lloyd: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

Kevan Jones: Oh, go on then.

Stephen Lloyd: I thank the hon. Gentleman for giving way. Given that he is suggesting that we should retain a like-for-like deterrent, what cuts to conventional services is the Labour party proposing? Would it cut the destroyers or the joint strike aircraft?

Kevan Jones: Oh my God! Sorry, Madam Deputy Speaker, but I am getting a bit frustrated with these people who clearly do not know what they are talking about. If the hon. Gentleman looks at the equipment programme, he will see that the deterrent is in there now. He and his colleagues are peddling the nonsense that we can have either Trident or something else in the defence budget. Is he suggesting that if we cut Trident, the money would be ring-fenced for defence? That would be the first time that the Liberal Democrats have been proactive in support of defence matters.
	The alternatives review has discredited the alternatives completely and exposed the reckless policy of the Liberal Democrats on this issue. We await the clear examination of their policy at the Liberal Democrat party conference, where they will no doubt look both ways—portraying themselves as unilateralists while at the same time arguing that they are strong on the nuclear defence of this country.

Several hon. Members: rose—

Dawn Primarolo: Order. At the beginning of the debate, Mr Speaker indicated that he was minded to set a time limit of six minutes depending on how much time was taken up by the opening remarks from the two Front-Bench spokesmen. We have made up some time with speeches that were commendably short, so I will start the time limit at seven minutes for Back Benchers. However, that might need to be reviewed if others are not disciplined and do not stick to the seven minutes or less limit.

Liam Fox: I will begin by saying that this is not the most comprehensive review of this subject carried out in recent years: the previous Labour Government carried out a comprehensive review. I can say that with some confidence, because one of the first things I did as Defence Secretary when we came into government was to ask to see that work and check whether its assumptions and costs were still valid. It was my view that they were, and that continuous-at-sea deterrence still represented the best system and best value for our nuclear deterrence.
	In our review, we looked at the previous Government’s review and at the systems that have since been rejected again. No Member wants to have an air-launch system or a silo-based system in their constituency. At the time, the Liberal Democrats put forward a proposal on the cruise-based system that they believed to be credible. We, of course, maintained our belief that CASD was the best, along with a replacement for the Trident programme.
	There are a number of reasons why I was happy for the review to go ahead. In particular, it would show the Liberal Democrats that the cruise-based system was a non-starter. First, it would be too expensive. It would require research and development for the missile system and for changes to the submarine programme. It would be slower and more easily intercepted. It would require our submarines to be closer to target, and therefore more likely to be detected. It would also—no small point—be illegal under the treaty on the non-proliferation of nuclear weapons. It was a non-starter. I am therefore pleased that the Chief Secretary, who is not in his place at the moment, came to the conclusion, rather belatedly, that it would be good to keep the Trident replacement system. It is a gain for the whole House and the country that the Liberal Democrats have seen sense.
	What is deeply depressing, however, is the willingness of the Liberal Democrats to abandon CASD. It has been the position of both major parties—the Labour party and the Conservative party—to have CASD based on four boats, or fewer if technology allowed. Let us be frank: in the foreseeable future, technology will not allow us to go below four boats. We need one going out, one coming in, one in refit and one in training. It is not possible to maintain what we have and what we want at lower levels than that, given present technology. If we go down to three, CASD cannot be guaranteed. If we go to two boats, we cannot have it at all, so that is an unrealistic proposition.
	What are the Liberal Democrats saying with this policy? They are saying that we would abandon CASD, but deploy at times of increased international tension. What does any Member think would happen to international tension if we deployed a nuclear system
	that was not otherwise deployed? That would be a crazy foreign policy. I have to say to my Liberal Democrat colleagues that it is all very well to talk about stepping down the ladder, but if the bottom of the ladder is hanging off a cliff, that is not exactly a sensible manoeuvre.
	On cost, the Chief Secretary said that they would save £4 billion over the lifetime of the programme—£4 billion over a 34 to 50-year period. That £4 billion is the equivalent to less than two weeks’ spending on the national health service, or six days of what we spend on pensions and welfare. This is supposed to be value for money. For that infinitesimally small saving over a 50-year period, they would abandon a crucial element of our national security—a very interesting definition of value for money.

Julian Lewis: For the sake of clarity, it is important to stress that in the report the only options for Trident are a four-boat fleet or a three-boat fleet. That is where the £4 billion would come into it. The report does not even consider or cost a two-boat fleet, because it would be impossible to reinstate to a higher level of readiness.

Liam Fox: It is not possible to put in monetary terms the risk that moving to a two-boat fleet would pose to the UK. They are completely different currencies. It is ridiculous to say that there would be a £4 billion saving, given the monumental disruption it would cause to our submarine-building programme and all the jobs likely to be lost, as the hon. Member for Barrow and Furness (John Woodcock) pointed out many times. The calculations in the report are fraudulent economics.
	The crucial question to be asked by anyone who wants to dismantle or diminish the CASD posture is: what will the world look like in 30, 40 or 50 years? It is all very well to say, “The risk assessments says that at the moment it’s okay”, but we do not know what the risk assessments will be in the future, and it is not our job to play roulette with the security of future generations in our country. We are being offered 50 years of protection from nuclear blackmail for the people of our country. There are those who say that £20 billion or more of capital costs is too much for 50 years’ protection from nuclear blackmail, but that it was all right to spend £9.5 billion for six weeks for the Olympics. We need to get our priorities right in this country and recognise what is important in the longer term.
	CASD gives us secure insurance that is proven. It is the best deterrent, and to say anything other is political posturing, I am afraid. As has been said, we could drive a nuclear submarine through this report. We all like a good joke in politics, but this is no laughing matter. If it is a joke, however, let us hope it rebounds on the Liberal Democrats, not on the people of this country.

Bob Ainsworth: The political class in this country and others struggles to communicate and maintain credibility with the electorate. It is not always our fault, but sometimes we are to blame, and when we commission such a report and present it in this manner, we do serious damage to our credibility when talking to our electorate. In my opinion, the report was born of unworthy motives and conducted without any outside consultation, and to present it with the kind of hyperbole we have heard tonight—as the
	most comprehensive examination of our nuclear deterrent in a generation—is clear and utter nonsense. The report picks apart nothing in the 2006 White Paper; indeed, despite the best efforts of the right hon. and learned Member for North East Fife (Sir Menzies Campbell) at the last general election, it confirms the basic underpinning of the report and denies the credibility of what was said at the last general election: that we can have a cheap nuclear deterrent.
	Of course, there is the question of whether we should have a nuclear deterrent at all. It is raised in all our constituencies all the time and is a perfectly reasonable question. Some Members believe and say openly that we should not have one, while others, I think, believe the same, but do not say so openly. The first question, then, is whether we should have one at all, but the report was not commissioned to examine that question; it was commissioned to examine the second question, which inevitably flows from the first: if we decide to have a nuclear deterrent, what kind should it be? What is the best system? What is affordable, effective and a real deterrent? That is where the report falls down.
	There is no such thing as a non-credible or a less-credible deterrent. There can be no such thing as a part-time deterrent. To be a deterrent, something has to deter. Doing anything less than deter stops a nuclear deterrent from being a deterrent at all. It turns it into what? Potentially, at times of crisis, it turns into an invitation; it most certainly turns it from a deterrent into a weapon. If we look at what underpins the White Paper— and as the previous speaker clearly stated—we seen that such a weapon would be dangerous to deploy. How, when and in what circumstances would it be put to sea? How would we disguise, at a time of rising tension, that we were doing that? It would be dangerous to deploy and difficult to sustain. It is all right to say that if we have three boats, we could, for a time in some circumstances, up our level of deterrent and go back to continuous-at-sea deterrence. Yes, we could do that for a while if we got ahead of the crisis, stepped back to CASD, deployed a boat at sea and kept it at sea throughout that time. But with three boats, for how long could we do that?
	The Government and the Labour party accept—indeed, it would be nonsense not to accept it—that technology may change the need for a fourth boat. If it does, why on earth would we do anything other than have three boats? However, if technology does not change those basic parameters, we will lose our ability to deter for a considerable time. This is not something we can just rescale in a matter of months; it would take years to rescale and we would therefore be rendering our deterrent non-sustainable.
	This report does not ask an honest question and I do not believe it was an honest process, but the review has at least flushed out the issue of whether Trident can be done on the cheap. I would not want to have an examination in a cheap operating theatre by a doctor who had been trained on the cheap, and I would not want a deterrent that was done on the cheap. If we are to have a deterrent, let us have a deterrent that deters, as that is the only one worth having.

Nick Harvey: I commend my right hon. Friend the Member for Inverness, Nairn, Badenoch and Strathspey (Danny Alexander) on bringing
	this piece of work to fruition, and I believe it has genuinely taken an open-minded look at the whole issue. The review did not set out at the beginning by offering preconceived conclusions to those carrying out the work, and I believe it has been a worthwhile exercise. I also note that the principal reason why alternative systems were found not to be viable was not—as some have suggested—because they were not technically viable. In contrast, it was because the length of time such alternatives would take, and the amount of money it would involve to equip a warhead to an alternative system, would make such alternatives prohibitive in the medium term. That is the expert view of those tasked with looking at the matter. If that is the conclusion to which they have come, I for one would not seek to question it and we must accept it.
	The second part of the study, which looks at alternative postures, concerns the debate that this report can now seek to inform and trigger.

Julian Lewis: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

Nick Harvey: Not at the moment.
	Given that this report was commissioned by a Government who are a coalition of two parties with fundamentally different opinions on the issue, it was never going to come forward with proposals. It was about considering the alternatives and informing the debate that might follow.
	I contend that nobody can rationally argue that the nature and scale of the nuclear threat that the United Kingdom faces in 2013 is the same as it was at the height of the cold war. Then we had a known nuclear adversary, the Soviet Union, that had British targets in its sights and we, similarly, had Soviet targets in our sights. We believed that it might strike at a moment’s notice and we therefore thought it was essential that we were ready at a moment’s notice to strike back. But 25 years after the Berlin wall came down, one cannot rationally argue that the threat we face today is the same as it was then. We can debate what threats we might face in the future, but we cannot argue that the threat we face today is the same as it was in 1980.

Liam Fox: rose—

Nick Harvey: I give way to my good friend the former Defence Secretary.

Liam Fox: We are talking about building a system that will protect us against the potential risks in 20, 30 or 40 years. The year before the Berlin wall came down, no one could have predicted the world we would be in today. No one can predict what the world will look like in the future. The hon. Gentleman is asking us to take an irrational and dangerous risk.

Nick Harvey: I agree entirely with my right hon. Friend that we must consider the threat we might face in 20, 30 or 40 years’ time, so we must therefore ensure that we have a nuclear deterrent in 20, 30 or 40 years’ time that is capable of deterring the threat that we might face at that point. My point is simply that the threat we face today is not the same as it was at the height of the cold war. It therefore cannot make sense to operate it on a 24/7 continuous basis facing a threat that simply does not exist at the moment.
	I understand the view of those who say that we must retain enough capability to ensure that, in the future when we face threats we cannot anticipate today but know intuitively could come, there is enough of a deterrent to repel them. That is perfectly logical, but it does not make sense for the nuclear deterrent—uniquely among our military capability—to be on patrol the whole time when even our national security strategy has stressed that it is for a second-tier threat and when we do not use our military capability to deter the primary threats on that continuous patrolling basis.
	To answer the points made by my right hon. Friend the former Defence Secretary, I am not saying that it might not be necessary in the future to crank up to a more rigorous posture—it might well be—but I do not see how anyone can rationally argue that we have to do that at the moment. The idea that the nuclear capability has a deterrent effect at all only by being patrolled 24/7 is clearly absurd. All the rest of our capability has a deterrent effect against a variety of aggressors in a variety of scenarios and we do not see the need to exercise any of it on a 24/7 basis.

Julian Lewis: I could just about stay with the hon. Gentleman’s argument if he was saying that we ought to build four submarines but not send them all to sea until the situation became worse, but he is not saying that. He is saying that we should build only two or three such submarines, which would mean if the situation got worse, we would not be able to reinstate continuous-at-sea deterrence because we would not have the submarines. Without the submarines, we cannot have the posture, much as he might like to reinstate it when the situation gets worse.

Nick Harvey: I can agree to the extent that we must ensure that we build enough capability that we can mount the deterrent we will need at the point that we need it. What that will comprise is a matter for further debate and further study and I note with interest that even those on the Labour Front Bench and the former Defence Secretary, the right hon. Member for Coventry North East (Mr Ainsworth), acknowledge that it remains to be seen whether we need four or three to do that.

Bob Ainsworth: Just let me see whether I understand the hon. Gentleman’s position: is he saying that we should build enough submarines to be able to go back to continuous-at-sea deterrence and to maintain it at any point at which the threat increases?

Nick Harvey: I am certainly saying that I think we should have the ability to go back to continuous-at-sea deterrence when we think we need it. I do not know that I would go so far as to say we should be capable of sustaining it indefinitely—I think that is unnecessary in scale—but I do think we should be capable of sustaining it for periods of time when there are heightened tensions. The problem we face is that we run the risk of having a Rolls-Royce nuclear deterrent at the expense of having an Austin Mini as the remainder of our defence capability. During the very decade when expenditure on the Trident replacement will be at its height, there will be a long list of other high-profile, highly important defence projects competing for what we all know will be very limited defence resources.
	There are some obvious examples. We are going to put the joint strike fighter on to our two aircraft carriers, and we do not have the slightest idea at this stage what the unit cost of them will be on a through-life basis. We are going to build the Type 26 frigate. We have got to do something about the Army’s equipment programme given that the future rapid effect system programme is now in tatters as a result of the last few rounds of cuts we have had to make. We are going to need another generation of remotely piloted aircraft. We are going to need more amphibious shipping when HMS Ocean goes out of service in 2018. We need more helicopters. We need more ISTAR assets, and we need to deal with the cyber-threat, which the national security strategy said was one of the primary threats and in which we are investing modestly but nowhere near enough.
	If anybody thinks that the resources committed to defence, or that can be anticipated as being available to defence, are enough to pay for all of those on the scale everybody in Government, and probably in the Opposition as well, would want to see and think is necessary in terms of our own strategic defence and security review, something is going to have to give. We cannot afford to do all that and have a nuclear deterrent scaled to deal with the menace of the cold war 25 years after the Berlin wall has come down and 19 years after we and the Russians de-targeted each other.
	It simply is not the case that in order to get a deterrent effect from our military capability we have to patrol it all the time. That is absolute nonsense. The British, the French and the Americans have a posture of continuous-at-sea deterrence; the Russians and Chinese do not. The Indians and the Pakistanis take each other’s nuclear weapons perfectly seriously, but that does not mean they patrol with them the whole time. It is complete nonsense to say we have to do it on that basis.
	I hope the report published yesterday will inform a national debate about this before a decision is taken in 2016, and when that is done the next generation of the nuclear deterrent will have to compete for funds alongside all the other platforms I have described, which are far more relevant to the threats we actually face.

John Woodcock: It is a pleasure to follow the hon. Member for North Devon (Sir Nick Harvey), even if I think it is regrettable that he did not take this opportunity to clarify the remark about sending Barrow workers to the Bahamas, which caused real offence in my constituency. I do acknowledge, however, that he has spent a lot of time over the past two years on this review, even if I find his conclusions completely wayward.
	This was supposed to be the Liberal Democrats’ opportunity to show that they could be trusted with the defence of the realm, and I have to say they have blown their chance spectacularly. Smashing the hegemony of a blinkered defence cartel that silenced any debate on the deterrent was heralded as one of the great Lib Dem wins from the coalition negotiations. We can imagine Lib Dem Members reassuring their concerned activists: “Yes, we’re more unpopular than we’ve ever been. Yes, we’re breaking our promises to students. Yes, we’ve given up any hope of being called the progressive party for a generation. Yet we bring you a referendum on the
	alternative vote, and we will challenge the tyranny of Trident renewal that has bewitched the two other parties.” It has not gone very well, has it?

Kevan Jones: As I understand it, now the Liberal Democrats’ position is pro-Trident. It might be because of the fact that they are only going to have two submarines, but is that not a major change from the last general election?

John Woodcock: I would describe it as a complete collapse in the Liberal Democrats’ position. Two years on, we have a taxpayer-funded document—how much did this process cost the taxpayer, by the way? The document basically confirms what we duped fools have been arguing for years—that unless people show their true colours and come out as unilateral disarmers, and in doing so advocate a path that we strongly believe would make the horror of a nuclear war more likely, there is no credible, cost-effective alternative to the fundamentals of the existing plan to replace our fleet of deterrent submarines.
	The alternative review rejects as unworkable and even more expensive what had long been the Liberal Democrats’ preferred option—some sort of mini-deterrent. Then the fall-back plan of halving the number of replacement Vanguard submarines to two, fervently briefed to the newspapers over the weekend, turns out not to have been considered by the review at all. Would anyone like to explain this? Have Liberal Democrats realised that every idea they have put forward so far has collapsed under scrutiny? Did they come to a view that it was best not to test this one in the official review, lest those pesky facts and figures ruin it like all the others?

Julian Lewis: The hon. Gentleman may be aware that all the talk about the Liberal Democrat conference considering a two-boat option comes from a Liberal Democrat document that has been drawn up by a Liberal Democrat group. When I asked the Chief Secretary earlier today at a briefing whether any copy of the review was going to be taken to the Liberal Democrat conference for consideration, he said, “Well, I might take a copy, but it will just be in my briefcase.” In other words, the review is not the document that the Liberal Democrats are going to consider. They are going to consider a completely different document making completely different recommendations, which the review did not even bother to consider.

John Woodcock: The hon. Gentleman is right. If we were living through a Monty Python sketch, this would be the point when the army major intervenes and says that this is all getting too silly and we have to stop it at once. But of course the consequences for the nation’s security, and the 13,000 people directly employed in Barrow and across the UK, would be bitterly serious if the Liberal Democrats had their way on their part-time deterrent idea. That is why it would be a very good thing if this shambolic process now sinks without trace. Even their own document makes it clear just how hopeless an alternative a part-time deterrent would be. It states that
	“a 3-boat fleet would risk multiple unplanned breaks in continuous covert patrolling as well as requiring regular planned breaks for maintenance and/or training.”
	They are effectively suggesting that we pay billions for something that we cannot be sure will be available to do the deterring when needed.
	Proper analysis of the figures makes clear the economic folly of the argument. The Chief Secretary told me that he had considered the cost of maintaining Britain’s submarine-building capacity at Barrow and elsewhere, but his own document makes no suggestion, as far as I can see, that the savings take account of that. It suggests that the extra costs from 2025 of bringing forward the next submarine programme—the successors to the Astute—to avoid a crippling gap in the order book of the shipyard are simply not considered in the £4 billion saving. When he sums up, will the Minister finally confirm what the Chief Secretary has so far avoided admitting—that these relatively modest savings would be completely wiped out by the extra cost?
	The choice that the next Government but one would face would be either to leave a gap in construction so large that it could end the country’s capacity to build submarines for ever, sacrificing all those 13,000 jobs, or to end up saving no money at all by embarking on a whole new submarine-building enterprise before it is needed by the Royal Navy.

Liam Fox: Will the hon. Gentleman confirm that the figures are actually worse than that? The savings that the Chief Secretary set out will not accumulate until far later in the period, while the costs that the hon. Gentleman is describing would be incurred very early in the process.

John Woodcock: Absolutely. On the Liberal Democrats’ official figures, the savings will not even start to accrue until 2025, but by that time work would have to be well under way in Barrow shipyard and the supply chain to make the costly preparations for the Astute successor submarines. The Liberal Democrats need to come clean about the extra cost, because it makes a mockery of what the right hon. Gentleman rightly said are incredibly modest savings over a 30, 40 or 50-year period.
	It should be remembered that the capacity to build nuclear submarines is one of the very few sovereign protected capabilities deemed so important and sensitive that the overwhelming majority of construction must be carried out on British soil. The submarine supply chain—centred in Barrow, but stretching from Aberdeen to Plymouth—is so advanced and finely tuned that any period in which it is left idle risks destroying it entirely. That is the lesson of the mass redundancies in my constituency in the 1990s. It is a great shame that some of those who now have the privilege of governing do not seem to have learnt a thing.

Bernard Jenkin: On a point of order, Mr Speaker. I am distressed to raise this point, but for some reason the Chief Secretary seems to have adopted a posture of preserved deterrence—that is, he is not here. He left the Chamber shortly after the Opposition spokesman sat down, in a three-hour debate of such importance. I am afraid that I regard that as rather a discourtesy to the House. Did the Chief Secretary give a reason when he left the Chamber and, if not, should he not have done so as a courtesy to the House?

Mr Speaker: I am not aware of whether the Chief Secretary did or not, because I was not in the Chair at the time. The hon. Gentleman has made his point and it is on the record, but nothing disorderly has taken place. There is no breach of order; the Chief Secretary has no obligations in this matter, but I note what the hon. Gentleman has said.

Oliver Colvile: May I say what a pleasure it is to follow the hon. Member for Barrow and Furness (John Woodcock)?
	It is a pleasure to have an opportunity to talk about the important issue of retaining Trident and our nuclear deterrent. Representing Devonport, which is the only UK dockyard with a nuclear licence, I can speak with some relevance about how my Plymouth, Sutton and Devonport constituency is on the front line of defending our maritime interests. I am afraid to say that, if what the Liberal Democrats announced yesterday were to come true, it would have a devastating impact on Plymouth’s travel-to-work economy and skills base. I hope that my comments will carry the support of all Members of Parliament in the travel-to-work area, including the hon. Member for Plymouth, Moor View (Alison Seabeck), who I understand cannot participate in this debate as she is in the shadow Defence team.
	Retaining Britain’s nuclear deterrent—a strategic concept that seeks to prevent war—is a key element and cornerstone of the defence of our country. It is a vital ingredient in our membership of NATO and our relationship with the United States of America, our strongest ally, and ensures our seat on the UN Security Council. Britain’s nuclear deterrent helps to prevent would-be aggressors and other countries from attacking us or using their nuclear arsenals to try to blackmail us. Our ownership of this highly successful deterrent came about following the bombing of Hiroshima and Nagasaki, which brought about a dramatic end to the final phase of world war two. Like a slap in the face, it shocked the world with its catastrophic implications.
	The implications of that event were so dramatic that no one has ever sought or dared to push international conflicts to a point where any country has had to use nuclear weapons, which have been Britain’s most effective insurance policy. Indeed, the development of nuclear weapons since Hiroshima and Nagasaki continues to have a significant impact on the veterans who were dispatched to Christmas island and other places to take part in the very tests that made the nuclear deterrent that we are discussing today possible. We must remember that we owe them a great debt of gratitude. Indeed, it would be most helpful if the Minister paid tribute to them in his winding-up speech.
	The nuclear deterrent continues to play a significant role in maintaining peace throughout the world. Unpredictable countries such as Iran and North Korea, which are threatening to develop their own nuclear capabilities, make it vital that Britain retains its nuclear deterrent. It continues to act as a pressure point, as conventional capabilities cannot and will not have the same deterrent effect as nuclear weapons do. To quote the Prime Minister, it is the “ultimate weapon of defence”.
	The deterrent is not just a defence weapon, however; it is also a key part of our economy, nationally and locally. It helps us to retain our skills base, especially in
	Devonport, which is part of my constituency, and in Barrow and Furness. Devonport dockyard, which is responsible for refuelling and refitting our nuclear submarines, is a vital part of our local economy, as more than 25,000 people in the Devonport travel-to-work area depend on defence for their livelihood. Yesterday’s mind-boggling proposals by the Liberal Democrats that the UK should move away from a continuous-at-sea deterrent and reduce the number of submarines from four to three, or even two, would have a devastating impact on the city’s economy. Their insistence that the main gate should be delayed until after the 2015 election is producing real uncertainty in the local economy.
	If the Liberal Democrats’ proposals were to become a reality, they would not only damage 25,000 people’s livelihoods but have a major impact on our low-skills and low-wage economy. They would also damage the job prospects of the young people who are about to start at Devonport’s university technical college, which is set to give youngsters an education that will eventually deliver a skilled work force who could be employed in our dockyard. That would be most unhelpful. A reduction in the number of nuclear submarines would mean less refitting work, and the highly skilled work force in our dockyard would have to move elsewhere to find work.
	Given the importance of Devonport to the south-west’s economy and the defence of our nation, I find it extraordinary that the Liberal Democrats are doing everything they can to delay the main gate for the Trident replacement. Perhaps this is going to be one of the bargaining tools that they will use in any negotiations that they might have with Labour, should the result of the next general election be a score draw—I very much hope that that will not happen—as it was in 2010. Sadly, the Leader of the Opposition has not said that the future of four nuclear submarines and the continuous-at-sea deterrent would not be up for negotiation in any potential coalition or supply and demand agreement, and I would be grateful if his position on this could be confirmed. At least we now know for sure that there is only one way in which we can be certain of maintaining our nuclear deterrent. That is to have a Conservative victory at the next election, which would ensure that our country could continue to play a significant part in global politics and that we had the necessary tools to defend ourselves.

Angus Robertson: I am pleased to be able to take part in a debate on the alternatives review, which many people with different views on deterrence theory believe to be fundamentally flawed because it did not consider all the alternatives. That is more relevant to Scotland than it is to many other places because Scotland probably has the highest megatonnage of weapons of mass destruction of any nation in the world.
	The Liberal Democrats must be living in a parallel universe if they think that people in Scotland do not think it important to consider all the options, not least because the majority of our public representatives have voted against Trident renewal. In the Scottish Parliament on 14 June 2007, 71 Members of the Scottish Parliament voted against Trident renewal; only 16 voted in favour. In this place, on 14 March 2007, 33 Scottish MPs voted against the Trident renewal proposals, with only 22 voting for them.
	This is the view not only of parliamentarians; it is consistently the view of the majority of people in Scotland. In October 2012, a YouGov poll showed that 57% of people in Scotland thought that the Scottish Parliament should have more powers to bring about the removal of Trident from Scotland. In September 2011, an Angus Reid poll for the Sunday Express showed that 57% of people in Scotland did not agree that Trident should be based on the Clyde. In 2010, a YouGov poll showed that 56% of people in Scotland believed that we should not buy a replacement for Trident. It goes on and on.

Bernard Jenkin: Let me draw the hon. Gentleman’s attention to the report produced by the Public Administration Committee, which experimented with deliberative polling to find out how to inform national strategy at the heart of government by engaging with the public. What did the poll conducted on our behalf show? The final question asked whether the United Kingdom should order four new submarines or give up nuclear weapons altogether. In Scotland, 49% were in favour and 43% were against.

Angus Robertson: As the hon. Gentleman knows, there are always outliers in polling—[Interruption.] I reflect on the fact that the Scottish National party is the only majority Government in the United Kingdom, receiving more votes than all of the three UK parties combined on the second vote. The hon. Member for Harwich and North Essex (Mr Jenkin) can laugh, but he represents a party that is the worst-performing centre-right party in the industrialised world. That is how badly it performs in Scotland. Even when his friend Lord Ashcroft polled in Scotland, he found that in principle 48% of Scottish respondents oppose the UK having nuclear weapons.
	The Liberal Democrat review would have been worthy, as the former Defence Secretary the right hon. Member for Coventry North East (Mr Ainsworth) suggested, if it had taken evidence and spoken with other people—people outside the Ministry of Defence, people outside government. The Lib Dem spokesman could have met the Scottish Trades Union Congress and spoken to its general secretary, Grahame Smith, who said that renewing Trident “will cost Scotland jobs”. We might not all agree with those views, but they are views of important people, and if we are going to have a review that looks into alternatives, surely the relevant people should be spoken to.
	Did the right hon. Member for Inverness, Nairn, Badenoch and Strathspey (Danny Alexander) meet the Scottish Trades Union Congress? No, he did not. Did he meet Unison, whose Scottish general secretary condemned the Government’s decision to replace Britain’s Trident nuclear fleet?

Thomas Docherty: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

Angus Robertson: No, I want to make some progress.
	Did the right hon. Member for Inverness, Nairn, Badenoch and Strathspey look at the STUC report, published in November 2012, which said:
	“Given that Scottish trade unionists appear to strongly support the removal of Trident, the question of the ‘Better Together’ parties is how else can Scotland and the UK be freed of Trident other than through a vote for independence?”
	That is the trade union view, but what about other important actors in public life in Scotland?
	What about the Churches, for example? What of the views of the Moderator of the General Assembly and of the Roman Catholic Church in Scotland? I quote:
	“On behalf of the two largest churches in Scotland, from where the UK’s Trident nuclear weapons are currently deployed…This planned renewal of Trident is contrary to international law and opposed by the majority of people in Scotland…Scotland’s churches have a long history of opposition to nuclear weapons. In April 2006 the Catholic Bishops of Scotland called for Trident to be decommissioned rather than renewed, and urged that the money saved should instead be spent on aid and development…In May 2006, the General Assembly of the Church of Scotland reiterated its strongly-held view on the immorality of nuclear weapons and called on the Government not to renew Trident, stating that:
	‘To replace Trident would represent a further announcement to the world that safety and security can only be achieved by threatening mass destruction; this is to encourage others to believe the same, and thus to hasten proliferation.’”
	Apparently, the Liberal Democrat review did not deem it important enough to speak to the Church of Scotland, the Roman Catholic Church, the Muslim community in Scotland or other faith leaders, all of whom oppose the renewal of Trident.
	We are aware of the view of democratic representatives in Scotland, the view of the voting public, the view of the Churches and the view of the trade unions, so what about the voluntary sector? The Scottish Council for Voluntary Organisations says:
	“Let’s call time on outdated Trident. They are an outdated hang-up from a past that bears little resemblance to the present political climate, yet Trident missiles still remain armed and dangerous in their silos in Faslane.”
	Did the review speak to the Scottish Council for Voluntary Organisations? No, it did not. There are real alternatives, and we disagree on what they might be. My alternatives—the ones I prefer—would be to take Scotland’s share of the Trident nuclear missile system and spend it on something that is, frankly, useful. The Scottish taxpayers’ annual contribution is £163 million. That could train nearly 4,000 junior Royal Navy officers, or nearly 2,000 Royal Marine officers. It could train nearly 4,000 nurses, or more than 4,500 teachers. It could build between 13 and 20 single-stream primary schools, or between five or eight secondary schools, or between five and eight community hospitals. The list goes on. Those are real alternatives, but they were not considered in the review.
	People need not hear that only from the Scottish National party. This is a rare occurrence, but let me quote from Scotland’s great Labour-supporting newspaper, the Daily Record. Today’s editorial, headed “People do not want Trident”, states that
	“the one option not put forward was the one most would prefer—scrapping the weapons… It was left to the SNP and the Greens to give the majority view from Scotland.
	Writing for today’s Record, SNP defence spokesman Angus Robertson says we should and could scrap Trident.”—(Laughter.)
	The irony that is surely lost on the representatives of the three United Kingdom parties in the House is the fact that the strongest Labour-supporting newspaper in Scotland is endorsing the view of the Scottish National party. The editorial ends with the words
	“It’s hard to disagree.”

Penny Mordaunt: Yesterday we were able to read the Government’s much-anticipated report on Trident and its alternatives, and I am delighted that it confirmed that the most effective and value-for-money option for the deterrent was a four-submarine CASD. How vexing, though, for the civil servants who worked so hard on it that half, or more accurately one seventh, of the Government have decided to disregard those findings, and to promote an option that was not included in the report’s brief because it was considered to be too ludicrous: a two-boat, part-time deterrent, which, as we all know, is no deterrent at all.
	I would not go so far as to say that some of my best friends are Liberal Democrats, but I am sure that their hearts are in the right place. Sadly, the location of the collective Liberal Democrat head is not always obvious; certainly, on this issue they seem to have taken leave of their senses. Yesterday the Liberal Democrats were in chaos, reeling from the discovery that the three-boat option did not deliver the savings for which they had hoped. In scenes reminiscent of Mitchell and Webb’s “Numberwang”, they ran around Whitehall and Millbank yelling different numbers in the hope that one of them might strike a chord.
	Perhaps a more appropriately named game show to describe yesterday’s endeavours would be “Pointless”. Let me explain why. The report puts the cost of two new submarines at £10 billion, the cost of three at £14 billion and the cost of four at £16 billion, excluding the attendant costs of missiles, warheads and infrastructure. According to the Liberal Democrats, those figures plainly show £6 billion of waste, but that analysis reveals a skewed sense of value for money. My understanding of the figures is that we could spend £16 billion on something or £10 billion on nothing, and the Liberal Democrat preference for the latter option has led me to conclude that it may not be a coincidence that the MOD budget was balanced only when Main Building became a Liberal Democrat no-fly zone in the last reshuffle.
	In the absence of the Liberal Democrat head, it is perhaps not unsurprising that they are ruled by their heart, which in truth yearns for UK nuclear disarmament. Certainly the former Defence Minister, my hon. Friend the Member for North Devon (Sir Nick Harvey), when debating the matter with me yesterday on the BBC, would not agree that we could now proceed to produce two submarines and have a debate about the others later. If he had been pro some kind of deterrent, he would have agreed.
	It may or may not be the case that we face no nuclear threat at the moment—although how would we know, because we would have deterred it?—but we cannot know what the future will bring. That point has been well made by several Members today. The Liberal Democrat position is contingent on the continuation of the current international climate, which, I remind Members, is influenced by CASD. Do the Liberal Democrats know something that we do not? Does their influence reach places that we cannot reach? Has the Tigger-like charisma of my hon. Friend the Member for Cambridge (Dr Huppert) and his cycling crusade, for which I salute him, had such an impact on the bicycle-loving populace of China that, should that state fall into malign hands, we need only deploy him on his bike to avert disaster? Or perhaps the Business Secretary has been able to
	persuade North Korea and Iran that they should not waste their time and treasure on nuclear weapons—after all, if they want to bring down the British Government, they need only give him a call. Or perhaps our polyglot Deputy Prime Minister has managed to negotiate with all prospective despots and promoters of state-sponsored terrorism to cut a deal of non-aggression for the next 50 years. If that is the case, I must counsel them that, in my experience, anything the Liberal leader might promise, even if it is in writing and witnessed by a Select Committee, might not actually come to pass.
	The Liberal Democrats might very well know something that we do not, which might explain their relaxed stance on CASD, but we must plan and prepare for the possibility of aggression from a nuclear power, so let us consider the options. What about the middle way of a three-boat fleet? The report concludes that with only three boats there would be several unplanned, as well as planned, breaks in deployment over a given 20-year period, whereas that has not been the real-life experience of operating a four-boat fleet.
	Even if we take the cited savings of approximately £3.5 billion on whole-life costs as correct, the average annual saving for the surrender of our continuous nuclear deterrent over 45 years of spending would be £78 million. As Trident and welfare are often presented as rival candidates for cuts, let us put that £78 million per year in context by comparing it with the approximately £160 billion annual cost of social security. Indeed, the total average cost, including missiles, warheads and infrastructure, of the whole shebang of a four-boat fleet would be about 1% of the non-pension welfare budget. CASD is value for money, and any alternative that is not continuous and is vulnerable to attack is neither value for money nor up to the job.
	Today, I have made a light-hearted speech about a very grave subject. I have done so because I wish to persuade our coalition colleagues of the error of their arguments. In the past three years they have had a steep learning curve in the realities of power. On the evidence of their current antics, they have at least one more lesson to learn: the first duty of a Government, of any colour or combination of colours, is to protect the United Kingdom from these dread weapons. I urge them to do so.

Thomas Docherty: I wish to begin by paying a couple of tributes, the first of which is to the hon. Member for North Devon (Sir Nick Harvey), who, despite my disagreements with him on this issue, was a superb Defence Minister. It baffles me why the Deputy Prime Minister sacrificed a Liberal Democrat voice in defence and foreign affairs in order to play some pavement politics for the next general election. I will hopefully dismantle some of the hon. Gentleman’s arguments in a little while, but it is worth noting that he was a very good Minister.
	I also pay tribute to my hon. Friend the Member for Barrow and Furness (John Woodcock). I hope that the hon. Member for New Forest East (Dr Lewis) will not take it as an insult when I say that my hon. Friend has demonstrated again why he is now the House’s leading expert on the importance of the deterrent. All Labour colleagues would acknowledge that he has been a champion
	at ensuring that Labour Members fully understand the importance of the role his yards play in securing our nation’s future.
	The hon. Member for North Devon claimed that the world was safer now than it was during the cold war, but I have absolutely to disagree with him. We are in a multipolar world where there will be emerging powers in the next 40 years, and the certainties we had in the cold war about the Soviet bloc no longer exist. It has been said several times, so I will not labour the point, but we are being asked to try to guess what the situation may be in 30 or 40 years’ time. It is not a criticism of the national security strategy from 2010 that it could not see the Arab spring coming less than 12 months ahead. Can he honestly tell us why he is so confident about the state of the world in 30 or 40 years’ time?
	The Chief Secretary to the Treasury, who has scuttled off, I suspect to cry somewhere in the corner, has claimed that this is a comprehensive document. I tabled about 35 parliamentary questions to the Deputy Prime Minister earlier this year and was astonished at some of the answers that were revealed. There was no discussion with the United States, at any level, about the role of CASD. The Chief Secretary quoted President Obama at length, but he did not even have the courtesy to approach the United States embassy, the Pentagon, the State Department or the White House. There was no discussion with our NATO colleagues. There was no discussion with the French or any other international allies, and there were no discussions with the defence industry, save for cursory visits, I think, to Aldermaston and Barrow. There were no discussions with the local authorities that would be affected, and none with the Defence Secretary, except on one occasion during the two-year process. The Chief Secretary to the Treasury does not even have a pass for Main Building, which goes to show how little credibility he had. It is worth noting that he was flanked at all times by two heavies from the Ministry of Defence to ensure that he did not stray too far—[Interruption.] I think that they were heavies, albeit in the nicest possible way.

Kevan Jones: Has my hon. Friend heard the rumour—it might be untrue—that the Chief Secretary was not given access to the UK’s targeting policy?

Thomas Docherty: If that were true, I would be absolutely astonished, but then nothing in this review and the work that was carried out by Liberal Democrat Ministers is credible.
	The hon. Member for North Devon set out an argument that I have heard before that neither Russia nor China operates a CASD policy. I accept the premise of his argument, but he failed to mention—I am sure that it was inadvertent, not misleading—that both those countries have other platforms, so they maintain a continuous deterrent. We are the only one of the five that operates a single platform, so CASD is a continuous deterrent for us—there is no back-up plan.
	I have a great deal of respect for the hon. Gentleman because after spending two and half years telling us why the Astute boat option would be sensible, he has at least had the courage to come to the Chamber and face up to the fact that he called that wrong. He argues that the problem was not a technical issue, but if his defence—
	pardon the pun—is that this is something that would cost billions and take decades to introduce, how is it not a technical problem?

Nick Harvey: It was not a technical problem in the sense that technically it would work; it was a financial and a time issue. I accept, as the hon. Gentleman says, that the option is clearly not a runner, but not because it technically would not work.

Thomas Docherty: If the hon. Gentleman is not splitting hairs, he is splitting something or other, because if the option would cost billions of pounds and take decades to develop, the problem is technical. Any solution can be reaped with sufficient money and time.
	The hon. Gentleman talked about how money could be circulated back into the MOD programme. We heard from the hon. Member for Moray (Angus Robertson) that the debate ends up being about things such as nurses and welfare, but the idea that the 4% lifetime cost savings as a result of having three boats would somehow be pumped back into the MOD’s conventional programme is not credible. The hon. Member for North Devon talked about how we could solve the challenges on the wider equipment programme, but we will have to do more with allies, whether on the joint strike fighter, interoperability or the remotely piloted air system. Work such as that started by the former Defence Secretary under the Lancaster House agreement is the way forward.
	I noticed that the clock froze for two or three minutes while the hon. Member for Moray was speaking, but having listened to his speech, I felt that his argument had been frozen for 25 years. I was conscious that he did not want to use up his time by taking my intervention, so let me say that although he talked about the trade unions that could have been consulted, he could have spoken to the trade unions I met with my hon. Friend the Member for West Dunbartonshire (Gemma Doyle). If he spoke to trade union leaders at Faslane—the hon. Member for Argyll and Bute (Mr Reid) is in the Chamber but, surprisingly, he has not indicated that he wishes to speak—they would say that their future depends on this. I am sure that it was an oversight that the hon. Member for Moray did not suggest that those trade union leaders should have been consulted.
	The hon. Member for Plymouth, Sutton and Devonport (Oliver Colvile), who I notice has not shown the usual courtesy by staying to hear the following two speeches before leaving the Chamber, made the rather bizarre claim that CASD could be guaranteed only by having a Conservative Government. If he was here, I would remind him that it was his Conservative Government who signed up to this review in the first place. I think that they need to hang their heads in shame for wasting taxpayers’ money and civil servants’ time—they have not wasted Defence Ministers’ time, because apparently they were not asked for their views—and there is absolutely no guarantee that they would not have a fudge at the next general election. The only way to guarantee a future for Barrow and for the Clyde is to send a clear message at the next general election by voting for my hon. Friend the Member for Barrow and Furness and other hon. Friends.

Alan Reid: Labour Members have stated a few times that Labour might go down to three boats, so what would the hon. Gentleman say to workers about the jobs that would be lost as a result?

Thomas Docherty: My hon. Friend the Member for North Durham (Mr Jones) has reiterated the point made by my party leader and the shadow Defence Secretary: we will maintain a continuous-at-sea deterrent. That is the exact policy adopted by the Defence Secretary. The only way we would not have a four-boat solution is if the technology moves on, which of course would completely change the configuration and the industrial strategy. I must say that the hon. Gentleman’s question was a classic Liberal Democrat last-minute jump-up. When he speaks, as I am sure he intends to, he can set out his argument. The reality is that the two-boat solution that he and his party support would devastate the community in Faslane.

Julian Lewis: In the past few months we have had several opportunities to debate nuclear deterrence. The hon. Members for Islington North (Jeremy Corbyn) and for Brighton, Pavilion (Caroline Lucas) and I, from our respectively opposite sides of the argument, successfully procured a debate on 17 January. Strangely enough, I did not hear many of these Liberal Democrat midway positions articulated on that occasion. The hon. Member for Islington North then secured a debate in Westminster Hall on nuclear deterrence and the non-proliferation treaty on 22 June, and I seem to remember that there were no Liberal Democrat contributions to that debate at all.
	I think that it is possible to make a principled and coherent case either that we should have an effective and continuous nuclear deterrent or that we should not, but one cannot make a sensible case for having a part-time deterrent. I have looked at the report in some detail and will pick out a couple of elements that I regard as particularly significant. The very first sentence of the executive summary states:
	“Deterrence rests on the notion of ‘unacceptable loss’—the ability to inflict a level of damage that a potential aggressor would judge outweighed any benefit they might gain by a particular course of action.”
	Well, yes and no. It does not just rest on the notion of unacceptable loss; it rests on the twin notions of unacceptable loss and unavoidable loss. That is where the whole concept of continuous-at-sea deterrence is central, because if one thinks one has a chance of avoiding an unacceptable level of retaliation, one might well take that chance in the hope that one will not have to face up to it.
	I have quoted before, and I will quote it again tonight, what was stated the first time a senior British defence specialist considered the concept of what in those days would have been called atomic deterrence. That was in June 1945 in a top secret report drawn up by a committee of defence scientists headed by Professor Sir Henry Tizard. He made a comparison between the atomic bomb, which at the time had not yet been tested or used against Japan, and the concept and practice of duelling:
	“Duelling was a recognised method of settling quarrels between men of high social standing so long as the duellists stood twenty paces apart and fired at each other with pistols of a primitive type. If the rule had been that they should stand a yard apart with pistols at each other’s hearts, we doubt whether it would long have remained a recognised method of settling affairs of honour.”
	However, if the duellists do not know whether the pistol is loaded, then even if they are standing only a yard apart they might just be reckless enough—“reckless” is
	the word that we hear time and again in the context of this Lib Dem policy—to take a chance. The whole point about nuclear deterrence is that it is unacceptable and unavoidable that a country will suffer nuclear destruction if it uses its nuclear weapons against a similarly armed country.
	In the document, which was prepared by two civil servants in the Cabinet Office specially seconded from the Ministry of Defence, a number of strange concepts are articulated. One of them is familiar—continuous deterrence, which is referred to without quotation marks. Then the document refers to things called “focused deterrence”, “sustained deterrence”, “responsive deterrence” and “preserved deterrence”. I have studied this subject for at least 31 years and I have never come across those terms before. At a briefing earlier today, the two civil servants were good enough to admit that in fact they had made them up. That is perfectly okay, except for one thing—the use of the word “deterrence”. They could just as easily have referred to something like “intermittent deterrence”, “semi-deterrence”, microscopic deterrence” or “virtually zero deterrence”. It is not really deterrence unless it is certain; that is why it used to be called “mutually assured destruction”. It is not enough to be able to threaten destruction; it has to be assured because otherwise the person may not be deterred.
	It may seem as though the Liberals’ policy is in disarray, but they could still emerge, at the end of this process, as the winners. I will explain why. At the next general election, we could have another hung Parliament, as my hon. Friend the Member for Plymouth, Sutton and Devonport (Oliver Colvile) suggested. The Liberal Democrats could then say to the Leader of the Opposition, “All that stands between you and entering No. 10 Downing street is to get rid of this weapons system.” They would not say, “Go down to two boats”; they would say, “Get rid of it completely”, because that is what they have wanted all along.

Hugh Bayley: In the unlikely scenario that the hon. Gentleman paints of our having another hung Parliament, the Liberal Democrats would presumably negotiate both with his party and with mine. I think he is going to give me a firm view of what the answer would be from his party, and our Front Benchers have already given a firm view of what the answer would be from our party.

Julian Lewis: I am delighted by that intervention, because it not only gives me an extra minute but anticipates the next part of my argument.
	If the Leader of the Opposition accepted that deal, then knowing the Liberal Democrats, they would start making the same offer to the current Prime Minister, who would have to think to himself, “Well, if I say no and the leader of the Labour party has said yes, Trident is doomed anyway, so I may as well say yes as well.” Who knows how these things might work out?
	However, a solution is at hand: we could sign the main-gate contracts for some or all of the submarines in advance of the next general election. The only reason we put that off was to enable the Liberal Democrats to have their alternative study. They have had their alternative study, and it did not even consider a two-boat solution; it considered only a three-boat or four-boat solution. It could hardly be a breach of the coalition agreement if
	we were to challenge the Liberal Democrats to accept signing the contracts on the first two boats, if not the first three. That would at least prevent them from blackmailing either party, in the event of a hung Parliament, to get rid of the deterrent entirely.
	At the most recent Defence questions I think I heard from the Opposition a commitment to try to bring forward the main gate decision to this side of the election. I urge Opposition Members who believe in deterrence to join Conservative Members and put relentless pressure on our leaders for a grand coalition to bring forward the main gate decision and secure the future of the nuclear deterrent—

Mr Speaker: Order.

Caroline Lucas: I want to shift the terms of the debate. I do not want to pursue the fallacy of an independent deterrent, although let us be very clear that it is a fallacy: our so-called nuclear deterrent is not independent—we would need agreement from the US to do almost anything with it—and there is not very much evidence that it is a deterrent, either.

Thomas Docherty: Will the hon. Lady give way?

Caroline Lucas: I want to make some progress.
	Rather than pursuing that particular argument, I want to argue that it is now time to shift the emphasis of the defence debate and that the best deterrence of all is to work with other nations to solve global threats such as fossil fuel-induced climate disruption, transnational trafficking of weapons and drugs, and the poverty and desperation that fuels conflict, hunger and violence around the world.
	That is why it is deeply worrying and, indeed, the height of irresponsibility that both the 2010 strategic defence and security review and this review of an alternative to Trident have not explored the full range of options. The Prime Minister trumpeted the review as “neutral” and “factual”, but I would argue that it is biased and empty of essential facts. That means that there is a risk that any parliamentary votes taken in 2016 will be ill-informed and hung up on a cold war era that has long gone.
	The decision that should be taken is one based on what would genuinely contribute most to the security of the British people. There is a real argument that says that by not replacing Trident we could improve national security and allow the Ministry of Defence to spend the more than £100 billion saved over the lifetime of any successor nuclear weapon system on an appropriate response to the real security threats and challenges of the 21st century. The 2010 national security strategy identified these as organised crime, cyber-warfare, pandemics and, of course, climate change. Scientists, former US Presidents and, indeed, former UK Prime Ministers, among others, have all agreed that climate change is in fact the greatest threat facing humankind, and every pound spent on Trident is a pound not spent on more appropriate responses to the real dangers linked to climate change.
	If that is the case, let us explore how that money could have been better spent. The £80 billion to £100 billion price tag for Trident could have been spent on energy
	efficiency, energy conservation and renewable energy, all of which represent an investment in a positive future and the opportunity to be world leaders in an area of rapidly advancing technology, as opposed to a cold war past. Just £16 billion would insulate the 16 million homes in Britain that are currently uninsulated, saving 4% of UK carbon emissions and helping to prevent 20,000 annual cold-related deaths, and £30 billion would provide 3,500 offshore turbines, supplying 15% of UK electricity use. Crucially, positive investment in a greener future would make us more secure by reducing the impacts of climate change and ending our dependence on foreign oil—a key root cause of global terrorism.
	The national security strategy also highlights the ongoing need to tackle terrorism, but as Tony Blair himself said in October 2005:
	“I do not think that anyone pretends that the independent nuclear deterrent is a defence against terrorism”.—[Official Report, 19 October 2005; Vol. 437, c. 841.]
	A group of senior military officers, including the former head of the armed forces, Field Marshall Lord Bramall, reached much the same conclusion in a letter to The Times in 2009:
	“Nuclear weapons have shown themselves to be completely useless as a deterrent to the threats and scale of the violence we currently face or are likely to face, particularly international terrorism.”
	As one commentator has recently put it,
	“confronting the threats of today with nuclear weapons is as archaic as attempting to fight tanks with a blade attached to the barrel of a rifle would have been 70 years ago.”
	The bottom line is that the UK does not need Trident; nor can we afford it. An independent and strategic assessment of risk does not justify spending tens of billions of pounds on Trident when we have, for example, troops on the front line who are not getting the equipment they need. Alternatively, and in this time of austerity, we might also question whether or not the initial estimated £25 billion could pay instead for 60,000 newly qualified nurses or 60,000 new secondary school teachers for the next 10 years. That is why I say that to use the amount of money suggested on a project that will make Britain and the world less, not more, safe is politically irresponsible, morally bankrupt and economically obscene.
	Moreover, this Government, like the last, have committed themselves under the non-proliferation treaty to
	“make special efforts to establish the necessary framework to achieve and maintain a world without nuclear weapons.”
	The UK committed to multilateral disarmament when it signed the NPT in 1968 and agreed to negotiate the elimination of all nuclear weapons. So far, Britain has not played a particularly constructive role in that process.

Kevan Jones: It has.

Caroline Lucas: Let me give an example. When 132 states gathered in Oslo in early 2013 to discuss the humanitarian impact of nuclear weapons, the British Government were not even there. Replacing the Trident system means committing the UK to maintaining an arsenal of nuclear weapons for decades to come. Expert opinion indicates that that is not in line with the UK’s obligations as an NPT signatory to pursue negotiations in good faith on nuclear disarmament.

Kevan Jones: I cannot answer for the present Government, but it is a matter of fact that the last Labour Government reduced the number of warheads and got rid of the WE177 freefall bomb, so it is not true to say that the Labour Government did not make moves to reduce our nuclear weapons arsenal.

Caroline Lucas: What I said was that Britain has so far not played a particularly constructive role in the process. I have described what happened in Oslo earlier this year. Irrespective of the firepower, the message that we are sending to other states is that the way to be secure is to get more nuclear weapons. That is likely to make us less safe, not more safe. I do not know how we will be able to argue that Iran should not get nuclear weapons, as I deeply hope it will not, if we are perceived to be enhancing our nuclear weapons.

Kevan Jones: Will the hon. Lady give way again?

Caroline Lucas: No I will not, because I have more to say.
	Moral and diplomatic leadership is required in multilateral disarmament initiatives such as the global nuclear abolition treaty and the UN’s proposed weapons of mass destruction free zone in the middle east. How can the UK participate constructively in multilateral negotiations on a treaty to ban and eliminate nuclear weapons when it is perceived to be doing the opposite at home?
	Moreover, if we keep and upgrade our nuclear weapons, we will send a signal to countries in the rest of the world that they should go out and get nuclear weapons as well. Remaining nuclear-armed for at least another half century will encourage other states to take the nuclear road and ensure that we face the very threats in decades to come that we least want to see. As Kofi Annan has put it:
	“The more that those states that already have”
	nuclear weapons
	“increase their arsenals, or insist that such weapons are essential to their national security, the more other states feel that they too must have them for their security.”
	The more countries there are that have nuclear weapons, the more risk there is that they will be used. We cannot preach non-proliferation to countries such as Iran and expect it with any conviction while we are perceived to be maintaining and increasing our own arsenal. It is a very odd insurance policy that makes us less safe, not more. For those who are worried about our status in the international community if we do not have Trident to sit astride, Dr Hans Blix, the former UN weapons inspector, points out:
	“Japan and Germany seem respected even without nuclear weapons.”
	In conclusion, the economics, the evidence and the ethics all point in one direction. What happens next is a game changer, because any decision about the future of Trident will shape the future that we face. I believe that we need to show leadership and courage. We are on the brink of committing a huge amount of money to a system that might well make us less safe, not more. The signal that it will send to the international community is that the way to be safe is to acquire more nuclear weapons. As more countries do that, our own security will be further undermined. That is why we ought to use
	this historic opportunity to begin seriously the effort of disarmament by not replacing Trident and by using the money in a far more creative way.

Gerald Howarth: I pay tribute to my hon. Friend the Member for North Devon (Sir Nick Harvey), who was a very good and collegiate colleague in the Ministry of Defence. I am sorry that he was not able fully to carry out this work, because had he done so, I suspect the result would have been a lot better than this inadequate document that has been presented to the country today. It has taken two years to produce what has amounted to a mouse.
	It is important that we remember the context. In 2009, the leader of the Liberal Democrat party, who is now the Deputy Prime Minister, said in this House that
	“we should admit that we neither need nor can afford to replace Trident.”—[Official Report, 1 July 2009; Vol. 495, c. 297.]
	That is where the Liberal Democrat party was a few years ago. It now appears to agree that we should continue with the deterrent, albeit on a part-time basis. However, this is not the end of the story. This is not the party’s defined position. The document does not represent the settled policy of the Liberal Democrats. That is to be settled by their whacky members at their party conference later this year. Therefore, whatever is said from the Dispatch Box, or by Liberal Democrat Members, is not the final word on this matter of huge importance. One thing that can be said of the document is that at least it has sparked this important debate, which has produced some extremely impressive speeches that I hope will gain wider currency across the country.
	I wish to make three points. First, the deterrent has deterred. It has worked. We therefore do not need to invite people to make an act of faith.

Bernard Jenkin: I listened carefully to the honest and courageous speech by the hon. Member for Brighton, Pavilion (Caroline Lucas), in which she said that the more countries that have nuclear weapons, the more likely it is that they will be used. Does my hon. Friend agree that the only time nuclear weapons have been used was when only one country had them, and that as more countries have acquired them the likelihood of their being used has decreased? No nuclear weapon has been used since more than two countries have had nuclear weapons. Does that not tell us something?

Gerald Howarth: It does, but, if I may, I will come on to my hon. Friend’s point in a moment.
	My second point is that, yes, the deterrent has worked and it worked during the cold war. The argument is that the cold war has ended and so we no longer need the deterrent. However, as my right hon. Friend the Member for North Somerset (Dr Fox) said, we cannot predict what threats we might face in the next 30 or 40 years. While there appears today to be no immediate nuclear threat to our country, we know that other countries either have, or intend to acquire, a nuclear capability, and that there are approximately 17,000 nuclear weapons in existence.

Caroline Lucas: rose—

Gerald Howarth: If the hon. Lady will forgive me, I, too, have quite a lot to say. If she will permit me to continue to make my argument, this is an important point.
	In 2010, the Ministry of Defence’s Development, Concepts and Doctrine Centre published an updated version of Global Strategic Trends to 2040. On nuclear weapons and the proliferation of nuclear capabilities, its report noted:
	“The likelihood of nuclear weapons usage will increase.”
	Notwithstanding what my hon. Friend the Member for Harwich and North Essex (Mr Jenkin) said, that is the view of the centre. It stated:
	“Nuclear proliferation will be a significant factor affecting global security, especially as the transition to a multi-polar distribution of power brings change and uncertainty.”
	Given those circumstances, my third point is that in the face of such analysis it would be a dereliction of duty to render our people vulnerable, and the Liberal Democrats are proposing to gamble with the security of Britain. I refer to paragraph 32 of their review. In respect of the alternatives cited, it states:
	“The analysis has shown that there are alternatives to Trident that would enable the UK to be capable of inflicting significant damage such that most potential adversaries around the world would be deterred.”
	It goes on to say:
	“None of these alternative systems and postures offers the same degree of resilience as the current posture of Continuous as Sea Deterrence, nor could they guarantee a prompt response in all circumstances.”
	When the Chief Secretary to the Treasury says that his proposal would deter most potential aggressors, he owes it to us to tell us who the aggressors are who would not be deterred. We need to know the answer to that.
	The case tonight has been made overwhelmingly. I would like to add an ancillary benefit to the main thrust of the purpose of the deterrent. It was alluded to by my hon. Friend the Member for Plymouth, Sutton and Devonport (Oliver Colvile) when he said that the possession of this deterrent conferred upon the United Kingdom an important degree of influence in the world. It gives us enormous respect with the United States of America, and although that alliance might not be important to the hon. Member for Brighton, Pavilion (Caroline Lucas), it is important to the rest of us. It is important, therefore, that we recognise these ancillary benefits, which confer important influence on the UK.
	I agree with my hon. Friend the Member for New Forest East (Dr Lewis) that with all the cross-party agreement between the Opposition and ourselves, we should proceed as early as possible to ensure that the security of the United Kingdom is put beyond doubt and bring maingate forward.

Jeremy Corbyn: I am pleased we are having this debate and that the hon. Member for New Forest East (Dr Lewis) has spoken, because he sincerely believes in nuclear weapons as much as I sincerely disbelieve in them. Interestingly, he quoted Tizard as one of the main scientists involved in the Manhattan project and the development of nuclear weapons, but we should also recall that many of the others involved, including Joseph Rotblat and Einstein
	himself, were later appalled at what they had discovered, at how it had been used and at the consequences for humanity of possessing nuclear weapons at all.
	I hope that the hon. Member for Brighton, Pavilion (Caroline Lucas), I and one or two others might manage to bring to the Floor of the House a sense that there are alternatives to Trident. The review that the Liberal Democrats have asked for and that was no doubt produced at enormous expense is not a discussion of the alternatives. It is a discussion of weaponry and, in part, of perceptions of security and risk, but it is not a discussion of the alternative to Trident and nuclear weapons, which is not to have them at all and instead to aspire to a nuclear-free world. Interestingly, when those who support nuclear weapons are challenged, they all say they want to live in a nuclear-free world—

Julian Lewis: indicated dissent.

Jeremy Corbyn: Not all of them. I beg the hon. Gentleman’s pardon. I exempt him from my last remark. He wants to live in a nuclear world, but many who agree with him about the decision on Trident want to live in a nuclear-free world, yet they go on to say that they cannot do anything about it, because now is not the time to do it, and then they head off rapidly down the road of weaponry and cold war attitudes towards deterrence and defence.
	One or two fundamental questions need to be asked. A nuclear weapon is not a targeted weapon. Let us imagine we set off a nuclear weapon against, say, France. Let us suppose a Conservative Government got very angry with President Hollande. They are frequently angry with the French on most matters. They have never quite forgiven them for the 100 years war or the French revolution—[Interruption.] See, they are cheering up now. They are licking their lips at the prospect of war with France. Indeed, this whole building is festooned with memorabilia about the French revolution and the defeat of Napoleon. If they wanted to teach the French a lesson by sending a nuclear weapon against them, it would not take out a military establishment or an airport; it would take out millions of people in the civilian population, just as it would if used against Moscow, Pyongyang, Tehran or anywhere else. A nuclear weapon is a weapon of indiscriminate mass destruction against a civilian population. Small nuclear weapons were used in 1945 over Hiroshima and Nagasaki. They were tiny in comparison with one warhead on one part of a Trident submarine now, and the cancers from those weapons have existed and lasted for 60 years. The use of a nuclear weapon sets off a nuclear winter and an environmental disaster for those affected.
	To those who want us to spend, in reality, £100 billion on Trident, I say that by 2020—if the main-gate decision is taken in 2016—a large proportion of the defence budget will be taken up in building new submarines and the warheads to accommodate them. Will defence chiefs at that time accept cuts in every other area of defence expenditure to accommodate the construction of those new submarines and new missile system? I seriously doubt it. Those in the House who talk so glibly about nuclear weapons know full well that there is a serious debate in the Royal United Services Institute and the defence establishment about targeting defence expenditure on nuclear weapons when so many other demands are apparently being put forward by different service chiefs.
	To my colleagues in the Labour party, who have been through this debate on nuclear weapons many times, I say that if we win an election in 2015—obviously, I hope we do—the demands on that incoming Government about apprenticeships, student fees, benefits, hospitals, schools, council housing, railways, roads, and a whole range of things, will be massive. Will we say to our supporters, “Sorry, the priority is weapons of mass destruction. The priority is nuclear weapons”? I like to think we would not.
	Yes, we face threats in this world, including from terrorists, but holding nuclear weapons did not do the USA much good on 9/11, or us much good on 7/7, and it has not done anybody else much good. We must look to the causes and the humanitarian effects of war. A 1996 International Court of Justice ruling stated that
	“the threat or use of nuclear weapons would be generally contrary to the rules of international law applicable in armed conflict, and in particular the principles and rules of humanitarian law.”
	Let us look for alternatives such as nuclear weapon-free zones, supporting a non-proliferation treaty, or a conference of middle eastern states to bring about a nuclear weapon-free middle east. The review is not an alternative document but one that leads us down the road of nuclear proliferation and danger. The real alternative, produced by the Campaign for Nuclear Disarmament, sets out an agenda for peace and investment in people, jobs and a good future for this country, not investing in weapons of mass destruction.
	I hope I have managed at least to bring an alternative view to this debate.

Simon Reevell: I first stopped and thought seriously about nuclear weapons and the issues associated with them 30 years ago after I spent some time in the forest near a little town called Menden in West Germany. I was there with 50 Missile Regiment, which had battlefield nuclear weapons—we do not have those any more. The purpose of that regiment, come war time, was to fire its Lance missile into Soviet tank configurations, possibly in a battlefield context as a first-strike weapon. The regiment had three missiles, but it only ever trained to use one because its signature would have been picked up and the regiment would have been wiped out by Soviet battlefield nuclear weapons before it had even got close to loading the second missile. Its members did not bother practising to drive away either, as they had worked out that they could not get away fast enough to get out of the impact area of the weapon that would be fired against them. I have no doubt that the regiment would have been prepared to fire its weapon, and it was a sobering experience.
	A few years later in the Army I was tasked with lecturing and explaining the consequences of using intercontinental nuclear weapons, and I had to learn the difference between the consequences of using ground-burst weapons—those have been replicated on television and people might have seen the force that moves out along the ground—and air-burst weapons. Ground-burst weapons are appalling, but the consequence of air-burst nuclear weapons is truly horrific by comparison. I learned two lessons from those experiences. First, that such weapons are the worst example of man’s ability to cause death
	and destruction, and secondly that this country must never be exposed to those who believe they could use such weapons against us with impunity.
	I realise that over the years others have taken a different stance, and have done so in a principled way—I am thinking of previous Labour party leaders who had an open and sincere belief that they expressed during the 1980s. They were wrong: the SS-20s did not disappear from the Ural mountains because well-meaning people danced around Greenham Common air base but because cruise missiles were put into Greenham Common air base.
	I understand, too, that for some the idea of putting country before party is difficult. I understand that when coalition offers an opportunity for power, their approach might well be that party policies are paramount and not what is best for the United Kingdom. It is unfortunate when that happens, not least because it leads to a large amount of expenditure of time and money on reports such as the one we have been considering over the past couple of days. Commissioning a report in the false hope that it would undermine the argument for a submarine-based nuclear deterrent was always going to fail. Russia is not modernising its submarine fleet for no good reason and China is not expanding its submarine programme on a whim.
	The report is published and confirms that the only viable option is the submarine-based system, but what comes next, sadly, is the most appalling piece of “party before country” politics that I can recollect. The analysis of my coalition partners seems to be, “Our report has confirmed that the submarine system is the only option. It is the only option because it provides an effective continuous deterrent, so we will therefore go with the submarine system, but seek to make it non-continuous and therefore less effective and seek to portray that as progress.” If the Chief Secretary is a unilateralist, he should have the moral courage to come out and say so. If he is not, he should realise that this idea ranks somewhere between third rate and poor. The “four boat, continuously at sea” policy is the only practical way to maintain the effective deterrent that has protected these islands for a long time. It is about time we got on with its modernisation.
	Political maturity and national interest should dictate that coalition partners now accept that the part of the agreement that delays matters to 2016 has been rendered obsolete by this report and that a positive decision can and should be brought forward.

Madeleine Moon: Sometimes, we have to be blunt with the public and tell them what we are talking about when it comes to the nuclear deterrent. We are talking about what stops war, and it is a question of unacceptable loss and reaching a point where the losses from fighting are so great that one cannot contemplate moving forward.
	It is important and necessary for aggressors to believe that the UK has the capability and the resolve to deliver unacceptable losses in response to an imminent attack. We have thrown around lots of words tonight in this debate, but for me the most important has been credibility. Credibility is what the debate must be about. How credible are the threats out there that we
	face? How credible is our nuclear deterrent capability to our allies? How credible is our deterrent to our potential enemies?
	We have been told that this has been a comprehensive review and analysis, but I cannot believe that. I have read the document and, like many right hon. and hon. Members, I found little in it of any substance. The hon. Member for North Devon (Sir Nick Harvey) said that the nature and scale of the threat are no longer the same as they were during the cold war. He also, I believe, said we were not facing a tier 1 threat, but the national security strategy highlights the risk of nuclear attack under two tiers: tier 1, which is international terrorism including a nuclear attack by terrorists; and tier 2, which is an attack by a state proxy using chemical, biological, radiological or nuclear material.
	We need to look at the credibility of the threat. On Iran, the director general of the International Atomic Energy Agency said in his report to the board in June 2013:
	“As my report on safeguards implementation in Iran shows, the Agency continues to verify the non-diversion of nuclear material declared by Iran under its Safeguards Agreement. However, Iran is not providing the necessary cooperation to enable us to provide credible assurance about the absence of undeclared nuclear material and activities. The Agency therefore cannot conclude that all nuclear material in Iran is in peaceful activities.”
	Iran remains a credible threat.
	Turning to Pakistan, the Stockholm International Peace Research Institute confirmed in 2011 that Pakistan had increased its total number of warheads from between 70 and 90 in 2010 to between 90 and 110 in 2011. The risks of instability in its relationship with India and of the spread of its technology and expertise to other nations have to be a great concern.
	North Korea is increasingly unstable. Earlier this year we saw an increase in tension and we cannot begin to contemplate what that Government would see as an acceptable thing to do.
	Is there a credible threat of nuclear terrorist attack from non-state actors? According to Barack Obama in 2010:
	“The single biggest threat to US security, both short-term, medium-term and long-term, would be the possibility of a terrorist organisation obtaining a nuclear weapon.”
	Last week my hon. Friend the Member for York Central (Hugh Bayley) and I were in Washington as part of a NATO delegation, meeting people from the Pentagon, the State Department and a number of think-tanks. I have also talked to NATO partners about the UK’s nuclear capability, and I asked them what their views would be if the UK removed, or failed to replace, its continuous-at-sea deterrence or CASD. With the exception of only one country, they reacted with horror. I cannot begin to contemplate what the US would think in terms of its pivot to Asia if Europe’s nuclear deterrent were downgraded. It is already concerned at Europe’s inability to meet the 2% budget commitment for support to NATO, yet in this report we are contemplating downgrading our nuclear deterrent. NATO is involved in collective defence and it is a nuclear alliance, yet here we are talking about removing some of that nuclear deterrent.
	Finally, there is the issue of the credibility of the deterrent. None of the alternative systems and postures offered in this review offers the same degree of resilience
	as the current posture of CASD, nor could they guarantee a prompt response in all circumstances. We just cannot move away from that one statement. That says it all. The risk this review finds we would face is unacceptable. It has to be unacceptable in respect of the safety and security of this country, our role and responsibilities within NATO and our role and responsibility to work towards world peace through that nuclear alliance.

Several hon. Members: rose—

Mr Speaker: Order. The wind-ups will start at 10.10 pm.

Bernard Jenkin: I will confine my remarks to just a few points. I congratulate the hon. Member for Bridgend (Mrs Moon) on bringing out the NATO side of the debate. Our continuous-at-sea deterrence is an important contribution to NATO. It is a pay-back to the United States for being the ultimate guarantor of European security. We should not imagine for a minute that if we started downgrading our deterrent, the United States would remain as interested as it is now in maintaining security in Europe, with all the benefit for this country.
	This debate has demolished the credibility of the document. The idea that it came as a surprise that submarine-launched cruise missiles with new nuclear tips were going to be fantastically expensive represents a scale of political dishonesty which stretches the imagination even for Liberal Democrats. I cannot imagine how anybody has ever taken the document seriously.
	The debate has essentially been about continuous-at-sea deterrence or not. The document damns the idea of a part-time deterrent. Paragraph 33 states that a non-continuous posture depends upon political confidence that
	“a potential aggressor would not launch a no-notice pre-emptive attack”—
	there is no guarantee of that;
	“with sufficient warning, the UK could re-constitute back-to-back patrolling”—
	there is no guarantee of that;
	“such back-to-back patrols could then be sustained long enough to cover any emergent crisis”—
	and there is no guarantee of that if we have only three or two boats.
	The point that I wish to make briefly is what defence policy is really about. It is not about predicting the future and working out what we might use. It is not about pretending that we can assess threats and that then settles what we need for the future. The whole point about defence planning and defence policy is that it is about preparing for what we do not expect, making contingencies for what we cannot foresee. That is what the whole document fails to do. The idea that we now live in a different world from the one we lived in during the cold war, and therefore that the global environment has given us permission to downgrade our nuclear capability, is clearly nonsense.
	There is another misunderstanding. This is not a weapons system that we have not used, do not use and are unlikely to use. The importance of our continuous-at-sea deterrent is that we use it every day. It shapes the global environment in which we live. Why is state-on-state warfare a second-tier threat rather than a primary threat?
	Why has state-on-state warfare between the major powers become unthinkable since the end of the first half of the 20th century? It is because those major powers have nuclear weapons. Were we to start destabilising the credibility of our continuous-at-sea deterrence, we would be destabilising the very global environment which the Liberal Democrats believe gives them permission to go part-time on our deterrent. My hon. Friend the Member for Aldershot (Sir Gerald Howarth) put it well. The part-time deterrent is no deterrent. We might as well pack it in unless we are going to stick with continuous at-sea deterrent.

Tobias Ellwood: I am conscious of the expertise that has been demonstrated in the House today. Although I have much respect for the Chief Secretary, I would not include him in that after today’s performance. His body language today suggested somebody who was well out of his comfort zone. He missed much of the debate, which was exceptionally good. The debate was about continuous-at-sea deterrence. It is a good job that it was not about continuous-at-Chamber attendance, because the Chief Secretary scurried out of the Chamber after only the second speech. He was quoted as saying that the Army has more horses than tanks so there is plenty of room for defence savings. This does not reflect a firm grasp of military matters.
	Many of us have gone through this journey. I have been influenced by many hon. Members and not least by Franklin Miller, who is an expert on these matters. We have taken the same journey in recognising what is required for continuous-at-sea deterrence. Our deterrence protects us from nuclear coercion, nuclear blackmail and nuclear attack. That is not just for now, but for the lifetime of the vessels, which is way beyond the horizon that the Chamber can predict. The Lib Dems recognise that there is a threat—that is clear—but they want a package that will mean that the UK is vulnerable. It is a part-time deal and proves that matters of security are not safe in their hands.
	The “Guinness Book of Records” might one day honour many of us on the Government Benches for the length of time that we have had to grit our teeth and tolerate the coalition, but this latest idea from the Lib Dems is as mad as it is dangerous.

Gemma Doyle: This has been an important debate. I congratulate all Members who have contributed. A number of strong and passionate opinions have been expressed. It is important that all views are heard in this debate. I agree with the hon. Member for Bournemouth East (Mr Ellwood) that it is a shame that the Chief Secretary to the Treasury was not in the Chamber to listen to the debate. Indeed, I think it was quite discourteous of him to leave his ministerial colleagues from the Conservative party to listen to the debate on their own.
	I pay tribute at the outset to the men and women serving in our forces, in particular—in light of this evening’s debate—the Royal Navy and staff based at
	Clyde naval base, who work with the deterrent day in, day out. It is somewhat questionable that the Member representing them—the hon. Member for Argyll and Bute (Mr Reid)—chose not to speak in today’s debate. However, many of those men and women are my constituents. I also pay tribute to the civilian and the industrial work force who support the operation. We are all—

Alan Reid: Will the hon. Lady give way?

Gemma Doyle: I am sorry; I do not have time to. [Interruption.] The hon. Gentleman could have put in to speak and he chose not to.
	We are all aware of the important job that the Barrow work force do. [Interruption.] The Chief Secretary has no business calling me discourteous; I have been in the Chamber for the entire debate and he has not. I pay tribute to my hon. Friend the Member for Barrow and Furness (John Woodcock) for speaking up so assiduously for his constituents, but there are companies and workers throughout the UK supply chain who are also integral to the success of the deterrent. I also pay tribute to the naval families who are without their loved ones, sometimes for a very lengthy period, with limited or no contact. It is not an easy position to be in. They, too, deserve our support and recognition.
	We live in an uncertain and unpredictable world, as I am sure all hon. Members would agree. New threats emerge, but that is not to say that the traditional threats have disappeared. In response, we must have an equipment programme that enables us to deter, detect and tackle the entire spectrum of threats that we face as a nation. We on the Labour Benches are committed to the minimum, credible independent nuclear deterrent, which we believe is best delivered, both in effectiveness and cost, through a continuous- at-sea deterrent. We have rightly been keen to scrutinise the report on the grounds of capability, cost and disarmament, but absolutely nothing in it suggests that it would be in the UK’s interests to move away from a CASD position.
	We have heard from some Members that our deterrent is nothing more than a legacy of the cold war. Of course, the old divisions of the cold war have passed, but they have been replaced with new uncertainties. Indeed, the hon. Member for Plymouth, Sutton and Devonport (Oliver Colvile) and my hon. Friend the Member for Dunfermline and West Fife (Thomas Docherty) outlined those threats, which are real. They are not imaginary or historic; they are very much present. We cannot predict what will happen. It is this age of uncertainty that is one of the driving reasons why it would be foolish to give up our deterrent now. Important points on that were made by the hon. Members for New Forest East (Dr Lewis) and for Harwich and North Essex (Mr Jenkin).
	We support a policy of multilateral disarmament. Like many speakers in the debate, I want to see a world free of nuclear weapons. It should be a cross-party priority for the UK to continue on the path towards multilateral nuclear disarmament, alongside our international allies, as a signatory of the non-proliferation treaty. The last Labour Government made progress towards that, as we have heard. I know that work is ongoing to reduce the number of warheads further. I am sure that we would all appreciate some information from the Minister about that.
	Those who were expecting the report to be published with some credible alternatives—they included my hon. Friend the Member for Islington North (Jeremy Corbyn)—will be sorely disappointed, as he pointed out. It was all too clear from the Chief Secretary’s opening remarks that the report offers nothing new. In fact, it showed that the Liberal Democrats have taken two years to review a policy and spent thousands of pounds of taxpayers’ money, only to conclude that their past policy simply does not work. In fact, the only thing that we have learned from the report is that the Liberal Democrats are now well and truly a Trident party.
	I am not sure whether to feel sorry for the Chief Secretary or to admire him. He has now reversed his party’s long-standing opposition to Trident, and I certainly do not envy him his job at his party conference this year. There is real concern that the review has been nothing more than an exercise in Lib Dem and Conservative party management, paid for by the taxpayer and taking up the valuable time of civil servants. That is no way to run a country, especially in relation to a decision of this great importance.
	We have heard a number of excellent contributions on the importance of the continuous-at-sea posture, including from the right hon. Member for North Somerset (Dr Fox), my right hon. Friend the Member for Coventry North East (Mr Ainsworth) and the hon. Members for Portsmouth North (Penny Mordaunt), for Aldershot (Sir Gerald Howarth) and for Dewsbury (Simon Reevell). It is not just the existence of our nuclear deterrent but its continuous nature that is central to our discussions and to the report. The report makes it clear, for those who were under any illusion to the contrary, that the
	“highest level of assurance the UK can attain with a single deterrent system is provided by SSBN submarines operating a continuous at sea deterrence posture.”
	That has been the basis of our deterrent for more than 40 years: an assurance that our deterrent operates 24/7, 365 days a year. In short, any move away from CASD will result in a reduced capability. If our deterrent is our ultimate insurance policy, it cannot be taken seriously if it is only part time. If that is what the Liberal Democrats are proposing, it will confirm what a lot of us have suspected for a long time—that they cannot be taken seriously either. They seem to want a part-time deterrent, but that simply would not deter anyone.
	We should also remember that, although the future of the deterrent is a decision for this House, that decision should not be taken in isolation from the rest of the world. It would appear, however, that the Chief Secretary did not even bother to consult anyone outside Whitehall, let alone in the rest of the UK. As my hon. Friend the Member for Bridgend (Mrs Moon) said, the UK is a proud member of NATO, alongside our international allies, and any decision to switch to an alternative platform, or even to adopt the Lib Dems’ part-time deterrent, would have consequences for NATO. It would indicate a significant change in our approach to defence across the world.
	The hon. Member for Moray (Angus Robertson) and I share a desire to see a world free of nuclear weapons, although our views differ on how that would best be achieved. We are looking to work with our international partners to rid the world of nuclear weapons, but his party’s policy is a uniquely insular one—namely, to remove the deterrent from the Clyde and claim victory
	because it has moved 100 or so miles south. The hon. Gentleman might also want to check his statistics, because the most recent YouGov poll showed that 52% of the Scots surveyed thought that having our own nuclear deterrent was important, with only 38% against that proposal. That is far from the majority against the proposal that he spoke of earlier. Also, given that not a single poll has ever shown a majority of Scots to be in favour of independence, he should be very careful about wanting to carry out public policy by opinion poll.
	In fact, the hon. Gentleman led the way for the Chief Secretary to make his U-turn, because the hon. Gentleman U-turned the Scottish National party’s opposition to nuclear weapons by forcing the party conference to adopt a pro-nuclear alliance position, in line with its ambition to join NATO. So he has no credibility on this issue—[Interruption.] And quoting himself is not going to make him any more credible.
	Paragraph 32 of the report states:
	“None of the alternative systems and postures offers the same degree of resilience as the current posture of Continuous at Sea Deterrence.”
	I thank the Chief Secretary for using the report so effectively to make the case for continuous-at-sea deterrence, and I welcome the conversion of his party to supporting the nuclear deterrent. The report sets out very clearly that CASD is the most efficient and cost-effective deterrent, and I hope that we can all now proceed on that basis.

Philip Dunne: It is a great pleasure to follow the hon. Member for West Dunbartonshire (Gemma Doyle), who spoke with great good humour, particularly in demolishing some of the arguments of the isolationists on this issue.
	This has been a most unusual debate on a most a critical subject of the utmost importance to the first duty of Government: defence of the realm. It is unusual, as it reflects a challenge of governing in coalition. This debate in Government time was opened by a Government Minister, my right hon. Friend the Chief Secretary—for whom I have considerable respect, for his day job—who supports one position, and is being closed by another Government Minister who is about to advocate an alternative view.
	This difference of view was, of course, anticipated when the coalition came into office. The coalition agreement of May 2010 said:
	“We will maintain Britain’s nuclear deterrent, and have agreed that the renewal of Trident should be scrutinised to ensure value for money. Liberal Democrats will continue to make the case for alternatives.”
	Later, in the 2010 strategic defence and security review, the Government’s commitment to maintaining a continuous submarine-based deterrent was confirmed and the work of replacing the existing submarines was begun. Yesterday, the Cabinet Office published an unclassified version of the review into Trident alternatives, so the Government have now delivered on their commitment set out in the coalition agreement.
	This debate has been remarkable, too, for the quality of contributions from right hon. and hon. Members. Before addressing some of the points raised, I want to make clear a few points of my own.
	The UK’s nuclear deterrent exists to prevent, at the extreme, any threat to our national existence or nuclear blackmail from a nuclear-armed state against the UK homeland or our vital interests. We hope never to use nuclear weapons, but to deliver deterrent effect under all foreseeable circumstances. Our ability to do so must be credible and assured at all times, and this depends on there being no doubt in the mind of a potential adversary about our ability and determination to employ our nuclear weapons, if necessary. This has been the judgment of successive Governments since the nuclear age began.
	Although I recognise that the cold war is over, I do not recognise the argument advocated by the hon. Member for North Devon (Sir Nick Harvey)—that this allows us to drop our guard against threats that might emerge over the next 50 years. This debate is not about our security today; it is about the security of our children and our children’s children.
	No one may like it—least of all the hon. Member for Brighton, Pavilion (Caroline Lucas)—but there remain 17,000 nuclear weapons around the world. Russia is spending $650 billion over 10 years to modernise its armed forces, including upgrading the readiness of its nuclear systems. We live in a time of unprecedented acceleration in the development of nuclear technology and the desire among nations in unstable regions of the world to procure nuclear capability.

Caroline Lucas: Will the Minister give way?

Philip Dunne: I am afraid I do not have time.
	Iran has a well established ballistic missile programme, is looking to extend its range and is close to being capable of developing a nuclear weapon. North Korea has proven nuclear capability and has tested ballistic missiles with increasing range. Only last week, a ship destined for North Korea with missile parts on it was intercepted in the Panama canal. This is a very uncertain world. I for one do not have the confidence to forsake a capability that has served this nation so well these past nearly 50 years in maintaining the security of the nation.
	The maintenance of the UK’s deterrent in the face of the clear threat during the cold war and the uncertainties of today’s world has been possible only because of the dedication of those who have worked tirelessly to provide it. I am sure the whole House, regardless of Members’ views on the issue, will join me in paying tribute to the crews of our submarines and their families, and all the men and women, both military and civilian, who are engaged in providing our deterrent. I also wish to take the opportunity to congratulate them on the successful conclusion a few weeks ago of the 100th patrol undertaken by the Vanguard class of submarine under Operation Relentless—a significant achievement and a testament to the commitment, professionalism and skill of all those involved.
	As my hon. Friends the Members for Plymouth, Sutton and Devonport (Oliver Colvile) and for Basildon and Billericay (Mr Baron) have requested, I pay tribute to the service of the veterans of British nuclear test programmes whose contribution ensured that the United Kingdom has been equipped with an appropriate deterrent over the past 45 years.
	During tonight’s debate, many Members on both sides of the House have commented on the purpose of the Trident alternatives review. That is worth revisiting, because of the context that it provides for the debate and the conclusions of the review.
	The Liberal Democrats’ opposition to the renewal of our nuclear deterrent based on the Trident system is well known. In 2007, they voted against the then Government’s decision, set out in the 2006 White Paper, to maintain our nuclear deterrent by building a new class of submarines. In 2009, the leader of the Liberal Democrats said
	“we should admit that we neither need nor can afford to replace Trident.”—[Official Report, 1 July 2009; Vol. 495, c. 297.]
	In their 2010 general election manifesto, the Liberal Democrats said that they would
	“rule out the like-for-like replacement of the Trident nuclear weapons... it is unaffordable, and Britain's security would be better served by alternatives”.
	The Chief Secretary has just confirmed that, as the author of the manifesto, he wrote those words. So the Liberal Democrats’ position was very clear: there would be no replacement of Trident, but they would explore alternative nuclear deterrent systems. As I have said, that position was reflected in the coalition’s programme for government.
	I have to say that I feel some sympathy for my right hon. Friend the Chief Secretary. It was no doubt an uncomfortable moment for him when he realised during the course of the review that he would have to come to the House and report that, in fact, there were no cheaper alternatives to our Trident system after all. It must have been even more uncomfortable for him to realise that, instead of being able to stand at the Dispatch Box and make the case for some sort of cruise-missile based system—which, by the way, would offer a far less credible deterrent than Trident—he would have to execute a major U-turn, and accept Trident.
	Of course, having been forced by the facts to accept the Trident system for party political reasons—to try to maintain some sort of differentiation on nuclear weapons, and to appease the disarmament wing of the Liberal Democrat membership—the Chief Secretary is now advocating a breaking of the posture that has been the foundation of our deterrence for the past 45 years: continuous-at-sea deterrence.
	The Chief Secretary said a good deal about the parameters of the review and the conclusions that it drew, but he missed one vital point of which I am sure the House will want to be aware. Members will no doubt have spotted that paragraph 4 of the Executive Summary of the document states that the review
	“does not produce a comparison of like-for-like capability.”
	There is a very simple reason for that. The review demonstrates that no alternative system has a capability that is comparable with our continuous-at-sea submarine-based deterrent with Trident missiles. The two former Secretaries of State for Defence, my right hon. Friend the Member for North Somerset (Dr Fox) and the right hon. Member for Coventry North East (Mr Ainsworth), are perhaps better placed than any other Members who have spoken today, given their own reviews, to see that that is clearly the case.
	Having listened carefully to the Chief Secretary’s speech and to contributions from the only other Liberal Democrat Member who was prepared to support this
	position today, I am still completely at a loss as to what the Liberal Democrats’ policy on Trident actually is. After a two-year review that was specifically designed to help them to come up with a policy, they still have not decided whether they are in favour of two or three submarines. At the start of the week, they briefed the national newspapers that they would come out in favour of just two successor submarines. One newspaper reported:
	“Mr Alexander has concluded there is no practical alternative to Trident…but he will detail alternatives for downgrading it, making clear the leadership’s preference is for a two-submarine replacement.”
	Yesterday, however, it was revealed that the Trident alternatives review did not even examine the option of replacing the current fleet of four Vanguard submarines with just two successor boats. Why not? Because at the outset, when the Liberal Democrats had the opportunity to raise the issues that they wished to be considered in the review, they did not do so. What a shambles. Only the Liberal Democrats could hold a two-year review, brief the newspapers that they are in favour of an option that was not even in the review and then, when the review is published, refuse to confirm whether they are in favour of it or not.
	This Government recognise the need to provide our nation’s security in the most efficient and effective way possible. We need a credible deterrence posture, and CASD alone provides that. I welcome the clear confirmation tonight from the official Opposition Front-Bench team of its new commitment to a continuous-at-sea deterrent, which it expects to be delivered by a minimum effective deployment. That was not its position last week, but it is now. If this change in posture or clarification of the official Opposition—
	Motion lapsed (Order, this day).

Business without Debate

Delegated Legislation

Mr Speaker: With the leave of the House, we shall take motions 5 and 6 together.
	Motion made, and Question put forthwith (Standing Order No. 118(6)),

Defence

That the draft Armed Forces Act (Court Martial) (Amendment) Rules 2013, which were laid before this House on 17 June, be approved.
	That the draft Armed Forces (Retrial for Serious Offences) Order 2013, which was laid before this House on 17 June, be approved.—(Mr Swayne.)
	Question agreed to.

Mr Speaker: With the leave of the House, we shall take motions 7 to 9 together.
	Motion made, and Question put forthwith (Standing Order No. 118(6)),

Companies

That the draft Companies Act 2006 (Strategic Report and Directors’ Report) Regulations 2013, which were laid before this House on 10 June, be approved.
	That the draft Large and Medium-sized Companies and Groups (Accounts and Reports) (Amendment) Regulations 2013, which were laid before this House on 24 June, be approved.
	That the draft Companies and Partnerships (Accounts and Audit) Regulations 2013, which were laid before this House on 24 June, be approved.—(Mr Swayne.)
	Question agreed to.

PETITIONS

Proposed closure of Post Office on Lupus Street (London, SW1)

Mark Field: I take great pleasure in presenting this petition on behalf of Mrs Wendy Binder, Mrs Sally Tooth and some 700 local residents of the Churchill and neighbouring wards in the Cities of London and Westminster constituency.
	The petition states:
	To the House of Commons.
	The Petition of residents of Churchill and neighbouring wards in the Cities of London and Westminster constituency,
	Declares that they object to the plans by the Post Office management to close its office at Lupus Street, Pimlico, London SW1 by March 2015 as it would be to the serious inconvenience of local residents and to the detriment of the community.
	The Petitioners therefore request that the House of Commons urges the Government to intercede on their behalf to require that the Post Office maintain this important facility in its current form and location and desist from its plans to close it.
	And the Petitioners remain, etc.
	[P001198]

A controlled crossing on Ashby Road (Daventry)

Chris Heaton-Harris: Last Friday, I had the pleasure of going to Falconer’s Hill infant school in my constituency, where I met the excellent head, Coleen Wilkins, and a number of the students who had collected this petition. Gemma Powell, aged seven, Freya Green, aged six, and Lola Gunn, aged six, told me about the need for a pelican crossing outside their school.
	The petition states:
	To the House of Commons.
	The Petition of residents of the UK,
	Declares that the Petitioners believe a controlled crossing should be installed outside the Falcolner’s Hill/Parker E-ACT Academy/Dolphin Day Nursery on the Ashby Road.
	The Petitioners therefore request that the House of Commons urges the Government to install such a controlled crossing.
	And the Petitioners remain, etc.
	[P001215]

Organ Transplants

Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.—(Mr Swayne.)

Kate Green: Last week was national transplant week, and the NHS highlighted an important campaign to increase organ donation. Donor rates have, pleasingly, increased by 50% since 2008, but although almost every one of us would accept a donated organ if we needed a transplant, only 57% of relatives agree to organs being retrieved. However, that proportion rockets to 95% if the deceased has discussed his or her wishes in advance with family members. Some 19.7 million of us are on the organ donor register, but three people still die each day while waiting for a transplant, so I wholeheartedly support the efforts of NHS Blood and Transplant to increase the number of organs donated. I add my voice to those who advocate an opt-out scheme.
	Having met and talked to transplant survivors, I can testify to the immense gratitude that they feel to donors who have literally given them a new lease of life, but donation is only half the story. Although the selection and allocation of organs for transplant is much less widely discussed, it is also a complex and controversial issue.
	A few weeks ago, I met my constituent, 18-year-old Natalie McCusker, who had been on the waiting list for a lung transplant for 19 months. She described to me what it is like to live in a state of limbo waiting for a suitable transplant. She has been too unwell to go to school, although her school arranged for her to participate in classes via Skype. She wanted to study sciences, but could not because oxygen cylinders and science experiments do not mix. As a young girl, she had enjoyed and been very good at sport, but that has become impossible since she became too ill. The effects on her family have also been profound; for example, her mum has taken a five-year career break.
	Natalie was first told that she would need a transplant when she was 15. She initially hoped it would be carried out at Great Ormond Street children’s hospital, but people transfer to the adult register at the age of 16, so she was advised to delay transplant surgery until she moved to the adult list.
	When Natalie first moved on to the adult system, she was able to access treatments that are deemed unsuitable for children. At first her condition improved, but seven weeks after taking her GCSEs, she became much more unwell. She was eventually listed for a transplant in November 2011. I completely accept that there are different clinical demands when treating children and adults, and that there is a need for separate systems. However, from the patient’s point of view, it seems that the transition may lengthen waiting times, and it also means that a new relationship of trust and confidence must be built up between the patient and new teams of clinicians.

Jim Shannon: I am grateful to the hon. Lady for bringing the matter to the House. I have a particular interest in organ transplants and donation because I have carried a card since I have been able to do so. In Northern Ireland, we carried out about eight
	transplant operations in 2008, but now in 2013 we carry out more than 50 a year—almost one a week. That has happened not only because those who carry the card pass on their organs when they die, but because we have the largest number of live donors in the whole of the United Kingdom—far above the average for England and Wales. If more effort was made on live donors, it could help to address the problem faced by the hon. Lady’s constituent. The evidence from Northern Ireland indicates that the longer one is on a donor list, the less one’s health deteriorates, so perhaps the Minister will address that point when she responds to the debate.

Kate Green: I note with interest what the hon. Gentleman says and I am sure that the Minister will want to respond to that point. Obviously, we would want to explore all methods of increasing the number of donor organs available. We should bear it in mind that one person may donate up to nine organs following their death.
	I was talking about the crucial importance of a sense of trust and confidence between patients and clinicians. For a course of treatment as massive and life-changing as transplant surgery, that is certainly no trivial matter. I cannot suggest any easy answer to that, but my first point to the Minister is to ask her to consider ways in which the disruption of the transition process between childhood treatment and the adult list could be minimised, with a particular interest in ensuring that waiting times are not extended unnecessarily.
	There are other concerns relating to the allocation of organs for those on the waiting list. The current process for allocating hearts and lungs for transplant is based on dividing the country into a number of zones. That means that if someone lives in one zone and a suitable organ becomes available in another, they might not receive it simply because they are on the wrong waiting list. In following a rigid zonal approach, important considerations of equity across the country could be neglected. A patient can be registered on only one list, and the result can be a postcode lottery for treatment.
	Patients in my region, the north-west—it is your region, too, Mr Deputy Speaker—wait the longest in the country for lung transplants: over 400 days in Manchester, compared with under 200 in Cambridge. According to a written answer I received from the Minister on 15 May, between April 2008 and March 2011 62.2% of patients in the north-west waited more than six months for a lung transplant, compared with an England average of 47.3%, and 23.2% of patients in the north-west waited more than 18 months for such a transplant, compared with an England average of 15.8%. The north-west also has among the highest death rates for those on the waiting list for a lung transplant—between 20% and 30%.
	I believe that we need to look again at the operation of the zonal system so as to get the balance right between the underlying issues of urgency, geographical proximity between donors and recipients, and waiting times. The most urgent cases should clearly take priority. One approach could be to treat urgent cases on a national basis and, if no urgent case exists, to allocate on a zonal basis. If that approach was adopted, zones would need to be more dynamic. In other words, if the waiting list grows the zone would also expand to give access to more organs.
	More radically, we could move to a fully national allocation system, whereby patients could be matched with suitable organs across the country. I recognise that geographical considerations are of course important, not least if the ischemia time, the time between organ retrieval and transplant, is integral to the success of the operation. For heart transplants, in particular, it very often is, and the system for heart transplants in fact appears to work effectively. That seems to be much less true for lung transplants. Equity is also a consideration. It is of course important to have regard to the interests of those who have been on the waiting list the longest, and that really should not be dependent on where someone lives and which list they are on.
	I understand that the NHS is now considering whether to move to a national registration system, which would be fairer to patients in regions such as ours. In the US and much of Europe this approach has already been adopted or is being considered. The evidence suggests that it could achieve greater equity without any increase in mortality rates, or indeed cost.
	So what is the block? Inertia and convenience undoubtedly play a part. I acknowledge that there is already better sharing of organs between zones when a suitable match cannot be achieved within a zone, but it seems that some transplant centres might be more interested in building up the scale of their own activities rather than progressing the idea of a national scheme that could deliver greater equity for all patients. Progress towards delivering a national list scheme in this country is proving painfully slow.
	What steps are being taken to make progress towards a more equitable national scheme of allocation, and what is the Minister’s attitude to the development of such a scheme? What work, if any, is being done to develop a national approach, and over what time scale might progress be expected? How best can we make use of technology and the sharing of data to facilitate the allocation of organs between zones? What learning and best practice can be adopted from other countries? What incentives would encourage a more equitable system of allocation between transplant centres and protect or improve outcomes for patients?
	I am very pleased to report that Natalie had a successful lung transplant two weeks ago. She is growing stronger every day and it is hoped that she will be well enough to return home next week. She and her family are of course absolutely delighted and hugely appreciative of the treatment she received from the transplant team at Wythenshawe hospital. However, for 19 months, while waiting for her transplant, her life was put on hold. Perhaps that wait could have been shorter if she had not been restricted to a single zonal waiting list. Yesterday she wrote to me to say how pleased she is that this debate is taking place in Parliament, which she says she hopes will help “to achieve something that will in future benefit the thousands of people that will need life saving transplants.”
	I hope that the Minister will be prepared to commit tonight to working towards a national system of organ allocation that offers equity of access to organs for transplantation and rapid progress towards achieving this. I am very grateful for the opportunity to raise this matter and look forward to her response.

Anna Soubry: Let me begin by congratulating the hon. Member for Stretford and Urmston (Kate Green) on securing this debate, raising this important issue, and enabling us to discuss it for this very short period. It is not really a debate but a number of questions quite properly asked, no doubt many of which I will not answer, through no unwillingness on my part but because, as I always say, the usual rules apply. However, all questions will be answered, if not by me tonight then certainly by way of a letter. I thank the hon. Member for Strangford (Jim Shannon) for his helpful and interesting contribution. He has been good enough to provide me with a clipping. I believe that it is about kidney transplants and kidney donations, and I will make further inquiries.
	As you will know and understand, Mr Deputy Speaker, this matter has come up by way of the fact that hon. Lady, as she explained, has a constituent, Natalie McCusker, who has had a lung transplant. We are all delighted that she was able to have that lung transplant.
	As we know, the donation of organs is sometimes from a living source, to put it in crude terms. There are many examples of people who have made the most amazing sacrifices, often within families, to supply a kidney to a loved one so that they can live. There is, of course, the whole additional subject of what happens on death and the wishes of somebody in relation to their organs, and the absolutely amazing difference that that generosity after life can make to people. No doubt Natalie is a very fine example of that, and no doubt she and her family are profoundly grateful to the person who had the good sense to indicate that they were willing that on their death their organs would be donated. Then there is the great and often very emotional matter of the family deciding that they are all content for this to happen. There is nothing worse than when someone is taken from us when they die. It is very difficult for anyone in the medical profession—we have nurses who are specially trained in this—to approach the family in those profoundly difficult times and discuss the possibility of organ donation. The work of those nurses and other medical professionals is one of the reasons we have seen an increase in organ donation.
	We all know the benefits of transplants and know that we need to do more to increase the number of organs donated. That would give many more people the opportunity to benefit from a transplant that could save their life or significantly improve the quality of their life. About 8,000 people are listed on the national transplant list waiting for a transplant. Many more could be listed if more donated organs were available for transplant. Many people wait months and years for a phone call telling them that a suitable organ has been donated and calling them in for a transplant. I am aware through my work as a Minister of some of those families and their anguish as they literally sit around waiting for that phone call, especially when it is a child who so desperately needs the transplant to, in effect, save or improve the quality of their life. For some, that phone call never comes and about three people—adults and children—die every day waiting for a transplant that could have saved their lives.
	Given that the number of people needing organ transplants in the United Kingdom is greater than the number of donor organs available, there has to be a
	system to ensure that patients are treated equitably and that donated organs are allocated in a fair and unbiased way. Allocation is based on the patient’s need and the importance of achieving the closest possible match between donor and recipient, which is often very difficult.
	All patients waiting for transplants are registered on the national transplant database. Rules for allocating organs are determined by the medical profession in consultation with other health professionals in health departments and specialist solid organ advisory groups. The blood group, age and size of both the donor and the recipient are all taken into account to ensure the best possible match for each patient, and the cardiothoracic advisory group is currently looking at improving the allocation of donated lungs to help to ensure equity and better outcomes for patients.
	At present, lungs are allocated to the transplant centre based on the location of the donor, as the hon. Member for Stretford and Urmston said. The transplant centre will decide whether or not to accept the lungs and will select the most appropriate recipient. NHS Blood and Transplant is working with transplant centres to consider whether the current allocation system can be improved. It is considering whether it would be worth while implementing a national allocation scheme offering lungs and other organs nationally, rather than by centre. Other models are also being considered. NHS Blood and Transplant monitors the current allocation system closely to ensure that there is equity of access across the UK, and a recent analysis showed no statistical differences in outcomes across the UK in relation to lung transplant centres.

Kate Green: I appreciate that the Minister may not immediately know the answer to this, but does the equity of outcome apply not just to survival rates, but to waiting times?

Anna Soubry: As the hon. Lady has anticipated, I do not have the answer to that question in my brief, but I will make sure that she receives a proper answer.
	Over the past five years, we have been strengthening the donation infrastructure by implementing the 14 recommendations of the organ donation taskforce, which were published in 2008. Is it not nice that in this sort of debate we can pay tribute to another Government of a different political persuasion? We are all united on this issue; it is not a party political issue and it is always a pleasure to take part in these sorts of debates.
	The number of donor co-ordinators across the United Kingdom has nearly doubled. They are working closely with intensive care clinicians and families to identify potential donors and obtain consent. As I have said, it is difficult work but, goodness me, what a difference it can make when it is successful.
	We have appointed clinical leads and established donation committees and chairmen in all trusts. This has driven improvement in hospitals, optimising the potential for organ donation. I am delighted that we have achieved an increase of 50% in organ donor rates and of 30% in transplant rates over the past five years, helping many more people to have the transplant that they so desperately need. We need to do more, however, to enable many
	more people like Natalie to receive the organ transplant that in many circumstances will save or enhance their life.
	On 11 July, NHS Blood and Transplant published the new UK strategy for organ donation and transplantation. “Taking Organ Transplantation to 2020” sets the agenda for increasing organ donation and transplant rates to world-class standards over the next seven years by aiming to improve consent rates to organ donation to more than 80%—they are currently 57%—and transplant more organs and increase the number of people receiving an organ. The strategy calls for a revolution in public attitudes and behaviours, and emphasises the importance of individuals and families agreeing to donation. That important work needs to take place irrespective of someone’s background, ethnicity, religion, faith or whatever else. We need to ensure that more people in all parts of society sign up to donate their organs and that we are able to persuade people’s families to allow their organs to be donated upon death.

Jim Shannon: The Welsh Assembly has recently taken a decision on organ donation, which is a positive step. Is it the intention to consider having that system in England, because that might help the hon. Member for Stretford and Urmston (Kate Green) in her quest?

Anna Soubry: The Welsh Government have introduced legislation under which people will have to opt out. We need to work with the Welsh Government to ensure that that system works, because there are concerns about the effect it will have across the United Kingdom when one country has people opting out as opposed to opting in, as in the rest of the United Kingdom.
	The independent organ donation taskforce examined the case for moving to an opt-out system in 2008 and its recommendation was against such a system. Spain had an opt-out system, but I think that it has now rejected it. In any event, it no longer has an opt-out system. I know that because I had a conversation with Spain’s Health Minister at a recent EU conference, as one does at such events, where people learn from each other, which is extremely useful. Spain has one of the highest uptake levels for organ donation and there is an awful lot that we can learn from it.
	When people apply for a driving licence, they can now tick a box to sign up for organ donation. That has its value. I think we should take every opportunity to encourage people to donate. However, if people are applying for a driving licence, there will be a tendency to skip that box because they want to get on with filling in the form.
	I will be quite frank. When I got this job, ITV ran an excellent campaign for about a week in which it encouraged its viewers to sign up to be donors. I suddenly realised that I did not have a donor card. I was informed by my brilliant officials that I did not need a donor card and that all I needed to do was go online. I went online and signed up extremely easily and quickly. I was highly impressed by that system. I would not have known about it if ITV had not run that campaign. There are many opportunities to encourage and positively enable people to sign up and donate.
	I will keep an open mind on the opt-out system. We will look at what happens in Wales. We may well have a great deal to learn from it. It may be that that system,
	which the Welsh Government have great hopes for, will be successful and that, in looking at it, we will form a different view. It is important to keep all one’s options open.
	As I was saying, NHS Blood and Transplant announced its new strategy on 11 July. It has a new chair who is full of vigour and who I am sure will do an extremely good job.
	In conclusion, transplantation offers many people the opportunity of life and enhances the lives of many others. I am delighted that Natalie has had that opportunity and we all wish her a long, happy and healthy life. We have made significant progress over the past five years and we must thank all the families of donors for agreeing to or supporting donation and giving the gift of life at such a terrible time in their own lives. We want to build on that progress and increase our donation and transplantation rates up to 2020 to match the world-class
	performance in many other countries. There is no reason why we cannot do as well as the Spanish or even better. We will continue to monitor the procedures in the United Kingdom for the selection and allocation of organs, and to consider whether changes to the allocation of organs need to be made to ensure equity of access for all people on the national waiting list.
	I hope that the hon. Member for Stretford and Urmston, whom I congratulate again on securing this debate, has been heartened by the points that I have made. If there are any questions that I have not answered, I will of course write to her, unless she wants to make a quick intervention before I finish. She seems content and I am grateful for that.
	Question put and agreed to.
	House adjourned.

Deferred Division

Terms and conditions of employment

That the draft Unfair Dismissal (Variation of the Limit of Compensatory Award) Order 2013, which was laid before this House on 10 June, be approved.
	The House divided:
	Ayes 300, Noes 204.

Question accordingly agreed to.

Police

That the draft Protections of Freedoms Act 2012 (Code of Practice for Surveillance Camera Systems and Specification of Relevant Authorities) Order 2013, which was laid before this House on 10 June, be approved.
	The House divided:
	Ayes 299, Noes 205.

Question accordingly agreed to.

Court of Judicature, Northern Ireland

That the rules of the Court of Judicature (Northern Ireland) (Amendment) 2013 (S.R. (N.I), 2013, No. 175), dated 26 June 2013, a copy of which was laid before this House on 27 June, be approved.
	The House divided:
	Ayes 301, Noes 203.

Question accordingly agreed to.

Senior Courts of England and Wales

That the Civil Procedure (Amendment No.5) Rules 2013 (S.I., 2013, No. 1571), dated 26 June 2013, a copy of which was laid before this House on 27 June, be approved.
	The House divided:
	Ayes 300, Noes 202.

Question accordingly agreed to.